Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Tourist Board

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to co-ordinate the marketing programme of the Wales Tourist Board with the programmes of the English and Scottish Tourist Boards.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): No, Sir. The national tourist boards consult each other but it is for each of them to decide how best to market its own country within the United Kingdom. Overseas marketing is, of course, a matter for the British Tourist Authority.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people consider that the work done by the Wales Tourist Board is to

date outstanding? But the registration and classification proposals which the English and Scottish Tourist Boards are putting forward are somewhat different from those which the Wales Tourist Board is at present successfully operating. Can he do his best to see that there is co-ordination because, for the benefit of overseas visitors, it is important that there should be common standards throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am glad to corroborate what my hon. Friend said about the Wales Tourist Board. He is right in saying that there is some difference between the views of the Wales Tourist Board and those of the other boards with regard to registration. Discussions are going on, and my right hon. Friends and I are considering the issues of principle and will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

House Building Materials

Mr. McBride: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has examined the supply capacity of house building materials, other than bricks and building blocks, in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: This is kept under regular review. Supplies of most materials are satisfactory although builders must allow for some delay in the delivery of copper fittings and, to a lesser extent, in deliveries of cast-iron and


joinery since stocks have diminished with increasing demand.

Mr. McBride: Is it not true that since I framed this Question there is an insufficient margin between the manufacturing capacity of bricks and concrete blocks and the requirements of the house construction industry? As a result of this, will there be an extension of the time limit in the house improvements scheme? Overall, is not this in itself, together with the other shortages known and admitted, a deterrent to starts and completions in the house building programme, both public and private sectors?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: When there is a period in which there is unbounded confidence in the building industry and improvement grants are being made at an increasing figure, there are bound to be short-term delays in some of the materials which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. But last Friday I had the honour of opening a new brick kiln in Aberdare, which is something that does not happen every day in Wales.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: While I take issue with the hon. Gentleman about his claim that there is unbounded confidence in the building industry in Wales, may I ask whether he is aware that there are complaints in Anglesey of a serious shortage of bricks, which is holding up house building there? Will he make inquiries?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the right hon. Gentleman will bring me details, I shall be glad to do so.

Bowen Committee

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will request the Bowen Committee to report by not later than 31st August, 1972.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I understand that the committee hopes to submit its report to me before that date.

Mr. Morgan: The House, I am sure, will be glad to hear that. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that gestation on the part of the committee for any substantial period would give the impression that he was perhaps more interested in shelving than in solving this problem?

Mr. Thomas: I assure the House that I am not interested in shelving the problem. The committee has met 21 times and I hope that its report will be before me quite soon. I intend to publish the report as soon as practicable thereafter.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the report will be a comprehensive one, by which I mean that all the evidence will be published and that the system operating in other countries will be thoroughly investigated?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot give any undertaking as to what the precise publication will be but I will certainly publish the report and I will consider what the hon. Gentleman said.

Derelict Land

Mr. John: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount of land in the ownership or control of nationalised industries in Wales which is categorised as derelict land.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: This information is not available and could not be obtained without the expenditure of an excessive amount of staff time.

Mr. John: Would the Minister of State acknowledge that the amount of land which is categorised as derelict is primarily in the hands of those nationalised industries such as the railways and coal which played a great part in Wales' industrial past? Is it not time that the Government considered granting sums of money to such nationalised industries to enable them to remedy the dereliction caused historically by their long tenure in South Wales?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I cannot answer the second question in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary because it hardly arises under the original Question. I agree with the first part of his remarks. Undoubtedly a good deal of derelict land in South Wales is in the possession of the nationalised industries. We have not the figures, for the reasons I have given.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Denzil Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will call a meeting of representatives of the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry in Wales


to discuss the effect of the imposition of the value added tax upon the Welsh economy.

Mr. Peter Thomas: No.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Treasury apparently has no idea at all how much money will be raised in Wales by the imposition of value added tax or how that compares with the amount raised at the moment through SET and purchase tax? Would it not be in the interests of good government to hold an inquiry to see what the effect of value added tax will be in Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman suggests an inquiry whereas the Question asked me to arrange a meeting between the TUC and the CBI. I am always happy for those two bodies to get together, but I see no real purpose in my calling such a meeting to discuss value added tax.

Mr. George Thomas: The Secretary of State has missed the point. Is he not aware that my hon. Friend is asking him to get these bodies together to consider the effect of value added tax? Would he not agree that this is bound to increase the cost of living substantially in Wales? Will he now take action?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I see no reason to think that Wales will be adversely affected by the introduction of value added tax and I see no reason why either industry or the consumer in Wales should be affected any differently from industry or the consumer in the rest of the United Kingdom.

A40, Pembrokeshire (Information Centre)

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales why permission has been refused by his Department for the establishment of a tourist information centre on the A40 road in Pembrokeshire.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have now agreed that the information centre may be established in the lay-by on an experimental basis.

Mr. Edwards: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware how pleased I was to receive on Friday a copy of the circular he is sending to Welsh local authori-

ties and to know that the representations which I and others have made to him have been successful? Is he further aware that I am grateful for the prompt way with which he has dealt with the application made by the Pembrokeshire local authorities?

Mr. Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend. May I say how grateful I am to him for the useful representations he made.

Caravan Dwellers

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many county councils in Wales have now provided proper accommodation for gipsies and other itinerant caravan dwellers.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Three; they are Carmarthenshire, Monmouthshire and Pembrokeshire County Councils. There are also pitches for gipsy caravans on a local authority site in Glamorgan.

Mr. Ellis: Why is Wales to be seen in this respect in so much less favourable a light than England?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the hon. Gentleman would show me to which particular parts of England he is referring perhaps I can look into the matter and give him a proper answer.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Since my hon. Friend is apparently of the view that provision for gipsies in Pembroke has been adequately made, may I ask him whether he is aware that many of us on both sides of the House are concerned that local authorities are being slow to meet their obligations, both legally and morally? If they continue to take this line, what further action does my hon. Friend consider possible?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: My hon. Friend will be aware that this is a local authority responsibility. Any further steps taken by Government would of necessity take the line either of circulars of advice or of further legislation, which we are certainly not considering at the moment.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is still a considerable problem in Newport and that I have had occasion to write to the Secretary of State about this matter again over the weekend? Will he take steps to see that the local authorities give more


urgent attention to these matters in Wales?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am prepared to agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to make faster progress in Wales.

Disabled Persons (Special Facilities)

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will draw to the attention of local authorities in Wales the international symbol indicating special facilities for the disabled which is sponsored by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: We did so in a circular to local authorities issued in February of this year.

Mr. Coleman: I am grateful for that answer. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is desirable that this symbol should be used extensively in both public and private buildings so that hardship to the disabled can be avoided? Would he not further agree that the use of these symbols in public buildings would be a good example to others?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman and am glad also to say that the Welsh Office has received no complaints that local authorities are failing to make progress in implementing the Act, within the limits of their resources.

Mr. Fred Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be far more to the point not only to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion but to bring pressure on the Government to ensure that Part I of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act is activated, because it is much more important that the facilities should be there before notification takes place? Would he not further accept that there is in Wales a body which is responsible for this, the Wales Council for the Welfare of Disabled People, at the inaugural meeting of which he was present, at Llandrindod Wells? Would he agree that this body could have much more power given to it in its early growth if Part I of the Act were activated?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the Act and I well remember the meeting to which he referred, at which I took the chair at

Llandrindod. His hon. Friend's Question relates to the international symbol indicating special facilities for the disabled, and that was the point I was answering.

Pill Redevelopment Scheme, Newport

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay an official visit to the Pill redevelopment scheme of Newport, Monmouthshire.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Hughes: If the Secretary of State were to do so is he aware that he would find that owner-occupiers are very dissatisfied with the compensation being paid for their homes, which they feel is quite inadequate and does not provide them with sufficient money to buy similar property in an equivalent area? Would he not agree that the compensation being paid is now completely out of line with escalating market values?

Mr. Thomas: I was aware that there were expressions of dissatisfaction about compensation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have no function in the assessment of compensation. The basis of assessment is laid down by Statute and disputes lie to the land tribunal, an independent tribunal.

Members of Parliament (Official Meetings)

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for official meetings with Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have no specific plans. As the hon. Member will know, it gives me the greatest pleasure to meet Welsh Members and I am always willing to arrange meetings when requested.

Mr. Roderick: Following the example set by the Minister for Industry in arranging a meeting with his parliamentary colleagues, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to do likewise, because I understand from the reports in the Western Mail on 9th June that some profitable decisions could arise from the meeting which the Minister for Industry held with his colleagues? If


this is the way in which we are to have profitable decisions for Wales, will the Secretary of State take such initiatives?

Mr. Thomas: I am very happy to consider any suggestions for a meeting which may be put to me by my colleagues on both sides of the House. As I said, I am always willing to meet hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whenever they request such a meeting.

General Hospital for Caernarvon and Anglesey

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made in acquiring land for the new General Hospital for Caernarvon and Anglesey at Bangor; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Negotiations for the acquisition of the land are progressing but have not yet reached the stage where they can be finalised. The planning of the hospital is not however being delayed thereby.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, but is the Minister of State aware that there is a good deal of disquiet in North-West Wales at the delay in acquiring land in Bangor for the new general hospital? Can he give the House an assurance that the starting date of 1975, which has been clearly given as an undertaking by successive Governments, still remains the date for the commencement of work on the new hospital?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am very much aware of the right hon. Gentleman's concern and that of his constituents in North Wales about this matter. The land, as he knows, is in multiple ownership, and numerous points of detail have to be settled before negotiations can be finalised, and how much of the land to be severed by the hospital site is also a matter now under discussion. But I repeat my assurance that there will be no delay in the projected position of the hospital.

Mr. Hughes: Is 1975 still the starting date?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I would need the right hon. Gentleman to write to me on that point, when I shall be glad to be able to answer. I have nothing to hide here. It is just that I want to be certain that the answer is correct.

Welsh Office Expenditure (Control)

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the methods of control in existence to scrutinise Welsh Office expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Thomas: As with all Departments, the Welsh Office accounts are subject to scrutiny by the Exchequer and Audit Department, certification by the Comptroller and Auditor General and examination by the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State not agree that the existing avenues open to Welsh Members of Parliament to investigate, scrutinise and study Welsh Office expenditure are very inadequate? Would he consider having a working party to consider Welsh Office expenditure, or that the Welsh Grand Committee or even an expenditure committee on the Welsh Office, should consider Welsh affairs?

Mr. Peter Thomas: That is another and very important question. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts down a specific Question on that matter if he wants a considered answer.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a very strong feeling that the time has come for the Welsh Grand Committee to be given greater responsibilities and that the investigation or consideration of Welsh Office expenditure is a vital field in which we could play a useful part?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I was not aware of that because, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Department's Votes are subject to examination by the Expenditure Committee, as are those of other Departments. I personally think that the system of scrutiny of Welsh Office expenditure at the moment is thoroughly adequate.

Mr. George Thomas: I must press the Secretary of State. Is he aware that Welsh Members, as Welsh Members, would like the opportunity to go into detail, in a way in which other hon. and right hon. Members of the House may not want to, on the question of expenditure in Wales, and does he not agree that this would be a useful further step


in the participation of Welsh Members in our own Welsh affairs?

Mr. Peter Thomas: That question is similar to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones). As I say, this would be a very new departure and one which, obviously, would have to be considered carefully. Naturally, if the right hon. Gentleman tells me that views have been expressed by hon. Members that this is a question which should be considered, one would consider it, but it is one on which there should be a specific Question put down so that there can be a considered answer.

Economic Forecasts

Mr. McBride: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has examined the forecasts of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, wherein they apply to Wales; and what action he intends to take as a result.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I always read the reports of the Institute with care. Wales will continue to benefit from the measures the Government have taken to stimulate the economy.

Mr. McBride: That reply was fallacious. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that in terms of this forecast storm signals are flashing for the economy of Wales, because, if the forecast proves true, there will be at the best 35,000 to 40,000 unemployed in the Principality? Is he further aware that the forecast is of a lower growth rate than the Government admit? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that value added tax will add 1 per cent. to Welsh prices? How can he support a Government so failing in their duty, as indicated by a vote of no confidence in them, since on Friday they required £500 million to support the pound?

Mr. Thomas: What I am aware of is that there is in Wales a universal consensus, which I find in my meetings with people in Wales, including industrialists and members of the Welsh Council, that things are improving rapidly in Wales.

National Water Development Authority

Mr. Denzil Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations

have taken place between the Welsh Office and local authorities regarding the proposal to establish a Welsh National Water Development Authority.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Consultation papers on various aspects of the Government's proposals to establish a Welsh National Water Development Authority have been sent to the Local Authority Associations. Their comments are now being considered.

Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that certain local authorities and water undertakings in the County of Carmarthen feel inhibited in taking part in these discussions because of the delay in the publication of the Crowther Commission Report because they feel that certain recommendations which might be made in it might have a bearing on the establishment of this authority? If the Commission does not report by the end of this year, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that at least a report relating to Wales will be published by then?

Mr. Thomas: I am aware of the feelings which were expressed in Carmarthenshire because they were put to my Department at a conference attended by representatives of the local authorities in Carmarthenshire to discuss the implications of the reorganisation of public water supply in the area. As to the publication of what is called the Crowther Report, I cannot give the date, but I hope that it will be published about the end of the year.

Sir A. Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that even those of us who warmly welcome the Governments plans for reorganising the water cycle are nevertheless unhappy at the proposed abolition of the British Waterways Board and the fact that there will be no national authority responsible for inland waterways?

Mr. Thomas: Many anxieties have been expressed, and that is why there will be a continuous process of consultation between my Department and associations representing local authorities and other organisations before a final decision is taken on the composition and powers of the new authority.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the Secretary of State reconsider his earlier decision to exclude from the jurisdiction of


the Welsh National Water Development Authority an area of great strategic significance in mid-Eastern Wales, namely, the Severn basin? That is the very area in which there are likely to be agonising conflicts of interest between small Welsh communities and adjoining areas in England.

Mr. Thomas: Discussions are taking place on this matter. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the proposals are that the Welsh Authority will have authority over river basins, many of which go outside Wales. The arrangement envisaged in respect of the upper reaches of the Severn ensures that the Authority will be able to safeguard Welsh interests.

Derelict Buildings (Pembrokeshire)

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the clearance of derelict buildings on land previously occupied by the Ministry of Defence in Pembrokeshire.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am aware of the problems in Pembrokeshire and have authorised the Derelict Land Unit to discuss with the County Council the preparation of a programme of clearance. When this has been drawn up and costed, priorities can be specified and I expect the County to submit the most urgent schemes to the Welsh Office for consideration.

Mr. Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people will be pleased that at last the obligations for so long neglected by Governments of both parties are being met?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: It has always been understood that the wartime dereliction of Pembrokeshire required treatment, but that the very much worse problems of industrial dereliction in the Principality also required treatment. The time has come for Pembrokeshire sites to be looked at favourably, and I am glad that it has.

Hospital Building (Cardiff)

Mr. John: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals his office has made for further new hospital building in the Cardiff area.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: None. Proposals for new hospital building are, in the first

place, the responsibility of the Welsh Hospital Board.

Mr. John: Arising out of a recent report in the South Wales Evening Post, will the Minister categorically deny that pressure has been brought by the Welsh Office to secure the building of an additional hospital in Cardiff in the late 1970s or early 1980s? Does he agree that that would be unacceptable to valley communities who are desperately awaiting improvement in the standards of their hospitals to enable them to cope with the increasing population?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I give that assurance. The Welsh Hospital Board is undertaking a critical review of the proposed building schemes costing less than £500,000 in the Cardiff area. As yet proposals have not come to me.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Minister accept that many people in Wales will be glad to hear this. The Heath Hospital in Cardiff in recent years has taken a great chunk of expenditure. I hope that priority will be given to Newport and Monmouthshire, where the demand is so great.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the Heath is the best example of a teaching, district general hospital in Western Europe, but the problems of Monmouthshire and Newport are never left out of our thoughts.

Secretary of State for Wales (Official Ceremonies)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many official opening functions he has performed in Wales in 1972; what was their nature; and where they were located.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Five. They were varied in nature and took place in both North and South Wales.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House who are Mr. Hywel Evans and Mr. John Clement? Is he not aware that it has been customary in Wales for opening ceremonies to be conducted by elected representatives? Why cannot he carry out more of these functions, particularly as he has shed his onerous responsibilities


at the Conservative Central Office? Does it mean that he is making up lost time in Hendon, South.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The position, as the hon. Gentleman should know, is that, because of the attitude of the Opposition, members of the Government and their supporters are kept in this House day after day. I am, therefore, unable to perform many of the ceremonies I should like to perform. For that reason I am extremely grateful to the high-ranking civil servants in the Welsh Office who step into the breach where necessary.

Mr. George Thomas: The Secretary of State should not dismiss the matter lightly in that way. Is he aware that he should be spending week-ends in the Principality and that it is wrong for civil servants to be given duties that properly belong to Ministers? We acknowledge with gratitude the ability of both the gentlemen who have been mentioned, and others who serve in the Welsh Office, but it is asking for trouble for civil servants to be called upon to make at opening ceremonies public speeches which should properly be made by elected Members who can be questioned in the House.

Mr. Peter Thomas: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am willing to take full responsibility for anything that any civil servant may say on my behalf in Wales. I am in Wales almost every week-end, and I am very happy to perform any of these ceremonies if I am able to do so, but at present it is impossible to get to Wales during the week because of the pressure of parliamentary business.

Improvement Grants (Second Homes)

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many dwellings in Wales in respect of which improvement grants have been paid are second homes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Local authorities are not required to inform the Welsh Office of the use made of houses for which improvement grants have been paid. Every house improved is a gain to the stock of good housing, but, of course, local authorities can withhold discretionary improvement grants if they so choose.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister of State aware that the percentage of part-time second homes for which improvement grants have been given in rural Wales is increasing? Does he agree that the object of these discretionary grants is to increase the provision of permanent homes in the area, and will he remind housing authorities of their duties in these matters and encourage them to acquire some of these cottages to provide homes for people living in the area?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, local authorities know the position very well. They share the view of the Government that it is the stock of houses which we are aiming to improve. Sometimes a holiday cottage becomes a home for retirement and then of course the owner becomes a local resident.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the large number of Mid-landers, notably from Herefordshire and Worcestershire, who have second homes in Anglesey in places such as Rhosneign, thereby bringing substantial wealth to North Wales? Should not this be encouraged in the interests of the Principality?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his pronunciation. I also congratulate him and his friends on seeking out the most beautiful part of the Principality.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does not the Minister of State agree that it is ironic that substantial sums of public money should be expended on the provision of second homes when some people are not able to acquire a first home? Does not he appreciate that we take a serious view of his reply that he has no information on this matter and that it is impossible for him to gauge how much money is squandered on the subsidisation of the luxury of a second home? Is he willing to get the figures?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am disturbed by the hon. Gentleman's approach to this matter because the attitude of the present Government is the same as the attitude of the previous Government to this problem. I remind him that local authorities can withhold discretionary grants for the improvement of second homes. The grant is given only for putting in standard


amenities, such as a bathroom and hot and cold water.

European Economic Community

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek to pay an official visit to the European Economic Community Commission headquarters at Brussels.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall do so when and if necessary.

Mr. Jones: Does not the Secretary of State agree that he should make an early visit to Brussels to ensure that, if we are to enter the Common Market, Wales is adequately represented on delegations to Community bodies? What studies are going on in his Department to that end?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that these matters should be considered. Arrangements are being made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to visit Brussels, but a firm date has not yet been agreed. I shall certainly pay a visit when I consider it to be in the interest of Wales to do so.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: What consideration has been given to the appointment of Welsh and Scottish Commissioners to sit permanently in Brussels to represent our interests throughout these enormously important developments?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Consideration is being given to the appointment of Commissioners, and all these matters are taken into account. No decision has yet been taken about appointments.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: On how many occasions have officials from the right hon. Gentleman's office visited Brussels, and how many visits are proposed in the near future?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I cannot give the exact dates without notice, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that officials from my Department—the previous Permanent Secretary, the present Permanent Secretary, the Under-Secretary who was referred to earlier and other officials—have visited Brussels and have had extremely useful talks with Community officials.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: How often?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I cannot give the dates without notice.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what increase is envisaged in the staff of the Welsh Office in order to establish direct co-ordination between his Department and the institutions of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Peter Thomas: My Office is joined with other United Kingdom Government departments in establishing links with the institutions of the EEC; as United Kingdom involvement deepens and work increases, appropriate additional staff will be made available in the Welsh Office.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that we would have been happier to have had a more specific reply than that? When the Secretary of State himself, in this as in other related problems in Wales, maintains a planetary distance between himself and those problems he cannot properly discharge his stewardship to the Welsh people without apprising either himself or the people of Wales of vital effects in every field following our entry into the EEC. That is something we have never had.

Mr. Thomas: The Question is about staffing. The staffing needs of the Welsh Office for this and other purposes are kept under constant review. In advance it is not possible to say precisely what the eventual needs will be, but I expect that some additional posts will be created this year.

Sir A. Meyer: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the Welsh Office will indeed be mindful of the very great opportunities which will open out for Wales after British entry into the Common Market and that provision of information of those opportunities is not missed as a result of under-staffing of his Department?

Mr. Thomas: I can give my hon. Friend an unequivocal assurance on that matter.

Mr. John Morris: To what level of expenditure will the Welsh Office have to be raised for Permanent Secretary status to be established, with full Permanent Secretaryship, as opposed to having only a


Deputy Secretary without full supporting staff? Is there any other Cabinet Minister who is the head of a spending Department who has not such support?

Mr. Thomas: What the right hon. Gentleman says may well be right. This is a matter which does not follow on the Question asked by his hon. Friend. It is an entirely different matter, and perhaps he will put down a specific Question.

Development Plan (Glamorgan)

Mr. Fred Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has prepared an integrated development plan for Glamorgan; and if he will now publish it.

Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir. This is the responsibility of the local planning authority.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that many people in Wales will consider that he should at least have taken some initiative, in view of the fact that a proposal for a new town was about to come forward and that such a proposal would have a considerable impact on the surrounding areas? Is he further aware that the Welsh Council even in its own document pointed to the serious psychological impact which this proposal might have and called for an impact study of Llantrisant New Town? Will he give an undertaking that he will not implement any decisions about the new town until an integrated scheme for development in Glamorgan is made and until a thorough impact study is supplied to the people of Wales?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir, I cannot give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks in the latter part of his supplementary question. As for his question about the taking of an initiative, I must point out that the Glamorgan County Council's old-style development plans under the Town and Country Planning Acts 1947 to 1962 were submitted many years ago and are out of date. Therefore, we are anxious that the county council should proceed as quickly as possible with the preparation of a new-style structure plan in accordance with Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

Mr. Rowlands: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the plea made by a large number of authorities which are presenting evidence at the public inquiry that an impact study should be instituted before any final decision is taken? Whatever the merits or demerits of the new town scheme, does he not think that he should initiate such a study so that before any irrevocable decision is made we shall know what impact the new town will have on the existing community?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that such a suggestion was put forward by Glamorgan County Council. As for deferring any decision on the new town, I must point out that sufficient work has been done to enable me to put forward my proposals. The public inquiry will produce further information which I shall take into account before coming to my final decision.

Central Development Area (Cardiff)

Mr. Fred Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now publish the findings of the inquiry into the central development area of Cardiff.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am considering the Inspector's report. His findings and my views will be made public as soon as possible.

Mr. Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that people in Cardiff in particular, and people throughout Wales generally since Cardiff is their capital city, are very concerned that the findings of this inquiry should be published as soon as possible? Is he further aware that many people in Wales feel that the findings should have been available before the inquiry into the Llantrisant New Town began since it was felt that, whatever happens in regard to the Cardiff Development Plan, developments at Llantrisant are bound to influence the situation? Will he not accept that there are valid criticisms to be made of the whole approach both to the Cardiff Development Plan and to Llantrisant New Town?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The Cardiff Development Plan is a complex matter and the inquiry lasted 14 weeks. It ended in March, 1971. The inspector did not report until January, 1972. I have had the report for five months and.
in view of the complexity of the matter, I do not regard this as an excessive delay. I hope to reach a decision as soon as possible.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although we appreciate the difficulty and complexity of this problem, it is a matter of major concern to the people of Cardiff that a decision on this matter should not be too long delayed? Will the give a guarantee that he will come to the House to make a statement about his decision before the House rises at the end of next month?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a matter of major concern to the people of Cardiff. I have no intention of delaying a decision any longer than is absolutely necessary. I hope that I shall be able to reach a decision—I can take it no further thanthis—before we go into recess.

Silage Manufacture (Planning Permission)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek to introduce legislation to provide that in Wales planning permission must be obtained for the erection of new buildings or for the use of existing bulidings to manufacture silage.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Planning permission is required except where proposals are permitted by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1963, as amended. The scope of this exception is being considered as part of the current review of the order.

Mr. Ellis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing nuisance caused to many of my constituents through the manufacture of silage by modern farm methods over which they have no control? Will he look into the matter to see whether effective control procedures can be introduced?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Suggestions have been made by various bodies for amendment of the General Development Order provisions. Particular attention is being paid to suggestions that farm buildings should not be erected within a prescribed distance of any dwelling other than one occupied in connection with the holding.

Rents

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if information is now available to enable him to estimate, on the basis of information supplied to him by local housing authorities, the average increases both in cash and in percentage terms in the rents of local authority housing in Wales as a direct consequence of the Housing Finance Bill.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Firm estimates cannot be made until local authorities have assessed the fair rents for their houses and these have been confirmed by the Rent Scrutiny Boards.

Sir A. Meyer: Has my hon. Friend any reason to suppose that the increases in Wales will turn out to be any larger than appears likely in England, and does not this give the lie to the vicious campaign conducted by the Labour Party to frighten council house tenants into thinking that their rents will double or treble?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no reason to believe that council house tenants will face substantial increases in rents. Rebates and allowances will help those tenants who need it.

Mr. Abse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in view of the widespread unemployment in Wales, particularly in areas like Cwmbran New Town where there is a large amount of rented property and unemployment, he would be wise to invite applications under Clause 63(6) of the Housing Finance Bill to minimise some of the effects of the legislation, which otherwise would be bound to encourage the feckless, humiliate the unemployed and penalise the frugal?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has tabled a Question later on this subject and I hope to be able to answer him then.

Mr. Roderick: In view of the proximity of the definition of gross values to the definition in the Housing Finance Bill of what rents should be, will the hon. Gentleman accept that the new gross values will be the new fair rent level for council houses?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the hon. Gentleman looks at my original answer he will see that I have already answered his question. I repeat that there is no reason to believe that council house tenants will face substantial increases in rent; rebates and allowances will help those tenants who need it.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total Exchequer contribution to be made to local authorities in Wales in the first year of operation of the Housing Finance Bill as a contribution to the rent rebate schemes to be introduced under the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: About £5 million.

Sir A. Meyer: Is it not the case that the anxieties of certain local authorities that the rebate scheme will place a great strain on rates are partly misplaced in that the greater part of these rebates fall due to be paid from the Exchequer, and that in the early years this will apply to virtually the whole of the rebates?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Again my hon. Friend is right. The Exchequer will meet 90 per cent. of these costs in 1972–73, dropping to 75 per cent. by 1975–76. The remainder, together with any excess rebates over the model rebate and allowance, will be met by the rates.

Mr. Rowlands: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the costs of paying rent rebates which will be borne by local authorities were once borne by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and that this is a regressive redistribution of responsibility for those most in need from a rich central Government in many cases to poor local authorities?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I cannot accept that. With his undoubted knowledge of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will realise that in both the public and the private sectors, those who cannot afford rents will be helped to pay them with allowances and rebates.

Council House Sales

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses were sold in Wales in 1970, 1971 and so far in 1972.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: 99 in 1970. 489 in 1971, and 449 to 30th April, 1972.

Mr. Roderick: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he believes that this policy of selling council houses will lead to a bigger supply of homes in Wales and. if so, how many?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am not able to give the exact figure. However, I can say that the Government believe that it is in the best interests of our people that they should be encouraged to buy their homes. That is why this Government have sent out a circular lately to housing authorities which is designed to help them in their deliberations on this matter.

Mr. George Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why neither Minister from the Welsh Office came to this House to give us an opportunity to question their circular on the sale of council houses, whereas English Members had the opportunity of raising a great many questions about the circular sent out in England?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the right hon. Gentleman is so upset about that, he had every opportunity to put down a Question about it today. Why did he not do so?

Manor Way and North Road (Cardiff)

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to improve safety conditions and prevent traffic congestion on Manor Way and North Road, in view of the proposal to use these roads as a temporary link between Eastern Avenue and the M4 from Coryton to Capel Llaniltene.

Mr. Peter Thomas: This is a most important issue and officials are examining the problems likely to arise. Decisions should be reached shortly.

Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this road is already over-congested and that there is very grave alarm in the area, especially as regards the safety of children? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that adequate preparations will be made if this is to be used as a motorway link? Will he assure us, further, that every step will be taken to expedite the construction of the M4 east of the Merthyr-Cardiff trunk road?

Mr. Thomas: Certainly I can give my hon. Friend the assurances for which he


asks. The whole route is being examined, and my officials are considering all the points and representations being made.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1933 (SECTION 76)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Attorney-General how many alleged contraventions of Section 76 of the Local Government Act, 1933 have been reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions in each of the last five years; in how many cases he has instituted proceedings; in how many cases convictions were obtained; and what was the average fine imposed.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): In 1967, 23 alleged contraventions of this Section were reported to the Director, two cases were prosecuted, one person was convicted and fined £120. In 1968, there were 25 reports, two prosecutions, one person convicted who received an absolute discharge. In 1969, there were 26 reports, two prosecutions, one person was convicted and fined £20. In 1970, there were 23 reports and no prosecutions. In 1971, there were 33 reports and no prosecutions.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at the voting at the last meeting of the Southampton City Council on the resolution dealing with the sale of land in order to see whether any matters should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman cares to send me any matters which he believes that the Director of Public Prosecutions should consider, I shall see to it that they are put before him immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIMONY

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions have been brought against men who have failed to pay alimony, granted by court order, to their former wives for any convenient period since 1st January, 1972; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: Failure to pay maintenance is not a criminal offence rendering the debtor liable to prosecution. The hon. Gentleman may have in

mind applications to commit to prison under the former judgment summons procedure. Figures for 1972 are not yet available. In 1971 a total of 1,683 judgment summonses were issued in the High Court and County Courts for failure to pay maintenance.

Mr. Dalyell: Does not this figure reveal the unattractive truth that the whole court machinery in this very complex matter seems to have created a condition in which many wives simply give up and do not get the money that is due to them? Is this a satisfactory state of affairs?

The Attorney-General: As yet, we have not seen the improvement which should arise under the procedures of the Attachment of Earnings Act, 1971, which came into force only in May of last year. It is generally believed that with that Act there will be better procedures by the use of that machinery rather than the previous machinery.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Is not this matter being considered by the Finer Committee? Can we have an indication of the progress being made by that Committee? When I put that question, I do not imply any criticism about any delay, because of the wide range of the problem that the Committee is trying to resolve.

The Attorney-General: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates, because it was in his time that the Finer Committee was set up, it is a vast and very extensive problem. The Committee has been working very hard under the leadership of Mr. Maurice Finer, and I hope it will not be too long before we have his report, though I cannot give any date.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN COURTS (SOLICITORS' RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE)

Mr. S. Clinton Davis: asked the Attorney-General if, having regard to the liability of the Bar to cope with the representatives of persons accused of crime, he will seek further powers to extend the rights of audience of solicitors in Crown courts.

The Attorney-General: I do not understand the first part of this Question. As to the second part, my noble Friend the


Lord Chancellor already has this power, under Section 12 of the Courts Act, 1971.

Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a printing error in the Question and that it should refer to the "ability" of the Bar? Is he aware, further, that in one recent case at the Central Criminal Court it appears that the defendants were unable to obtain any representation from some 15 silks because of their other commitments? There is a very great shortage of silks in the Criminal Division and it is therefore very important that more should be appointed who are familiar with criminal work. In order to deal with the situation which would thereby arise as a result of the appointment of more silks in the Criminal Division, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that solicitors should be given additional rights of audience?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a specific case. I am informed that at the time that the legal aid certificates were granted on 25th January, when it would have been the duty of solicitors to retain counsel, there were some 49 Queen's Counsel available and that on 1st May, a month before the trial began, 35 Queen's Counsel were available. I understand, further, that the names of 10 were suggested but that none of the 10 was approached by the solicitors on behalf of the accused persons.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRISTOL LAW SOCIETY

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with the Bristol Law Society about matters for which he is responsible.

The Attorney-General: None, Sir. I have noted with interest the pilot duty solicitor scheme which was run by the Bristol Law Society a few weeks ago. I understand that a Committee of the Law Society is now studying a similar Scottish scheme and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to consider the question of extending the Scottish scheme to England in the light of that Committee's Report.

Mrs. Oppenheim: In view of the outstanding success of the Bristol experimental duty solicitor scheme, in which

there was a very high take-up, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there should be a national duty solicitor scheme as part of the national legal aid service in order not only to render assistance but also to save the time of the courts?

The Attorney-General: I agree that that was a successful pilot scheme. My hon. Friend will appreciate that under Clause 2(4) of the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill, which is now before another place, a court can call upon a solicitor to assist a party to proceedings in the magistrates' court or county court by giving legal advice and assistance and by representing him in the proceedings.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUDGES (SECRETARIAL ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Meacher: asked the Attorney-General what is the current expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the provision of secretarial assistance, typing and dictaphone facilities, apart from the provision of clerks, for Her Majesty's Judges in the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Crown Court, respectively; and what additional provision he intends to make in the future.

The Attorney-General: It is not possible to quantify as a separate figure the secretarial and typing assistance which the judges receive. Consideration is being given to the need for further assistance of this kind.

Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that at least one of the presiding judges on a regional circuit normally has to write 10 long letters in long hand each morning because he has no secretary, while the nine judges in the House of Lords have to make do with one clerk between them? Is not this an inefficient way of running the machinery of justice? Cannot we have an early and substantial increase in the secretarial facilities?

The Attorney-General: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is pointing out, though the Presidents of the various Divisions are given secretarial assistance, and in two cases a secretariat and in one a personal assistant. There are these difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has


drawn attention. I shall draw the attention of my noble and learned Friend to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Is the Attorney-General aware that the situation is particularly serious in the House of Lords where there should be the least difficulty bearing in mind the importance of the duties falling upon the Lords of Appeal?

The Attorney-General: I have much sympathy with the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I shall again make sure that my noble Friend has it well in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON CRIMINAL COURTS (DELAYS)

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Attorney-General what is the average time taken to bring cases to trial at London Criminal Courts after defendants have been committed by a local Bench.

The Attorney-General: The average waiting time in London between committal by magistrates' courts and hearing by the Crown Court is 14·9 weeks where the accused is in custody and 26·1 weeks where he is on bail. My noble Friend is continuing to take all possible steps to reduce the delays.

Mr. Finsberg: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a man committed by the Hampstead Bench in April, 1971, has not yet been brought to trial? The onus for this appears to rest on the failure of the Crown to supply witnesses. Will my right hon. and learned Friend investigate the general and the particular to try to speed up matters?

The Attorney-General: I shall investigate the particular case to which my hon. Friend referred. If he sends me details I shall see that it is at once looked into.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Would the Attorney-General agree that an average time of nearly four months for people waiting in custody is intolerable? What steps are being taken to rectify that situation?

The Attorney-General: I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's views about the length of time in London. In the provinces, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it is much less—about eight weeks. What has happened is that up to

the end of 1971, 15 more courts were provided; up to June, 1972, a further six; and by the autumn there will be a further 10. The House must bear in mind that in London not only is there the volume of cases but also the complexity of cases which are peculiar and particular to London. The best method of dealing with the problem is to have more courts, and these my noble Friend is pressing on to provide as quickly as possible.

DOCK WORKERS (PAY AND CONDITIONS)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
Since I made a statement to the House on 26th May the National Joint Council has met three times. The last meeting was on 13th June. The Transport and General Workers Union held a national delegate conference on 14th June as a result of which it was decided to accept offers made by the employers and to defer the notice of strike for a period of six weeks.
The employers' offer on pay and conditions which have now been agreed were, first, an increase of 60p in the daily guaranteed payment. This increases the weekly fall-back guarantee from £20 to £23. Secondly, men on the temporarily unattached register who apply for severance payment under the terms of the industry's agreement and are selected will receive in addition to their severance pay a terminal resettlement grant of £500. Thirdly, a disturbance payment of £50 will be paid to a dock worker who comes on to the temporarily unattached register and does not leave within four weeks. This payment will be made to all dockers who are at present on this register for reasons of redundancy. Lastly, the annual holiday agreement has been adjusted to provide an extra two days' holiday in 1972 and a further three days' holiday in 1973. The agreement providing for these four changes will operate from Monday, 26th June.
As I informed the House in my previous statement, the union's claim also included a demand that registered dockers should carry out the work of stuffing and stripping containers at group-age depots. On 24th May the employers proposed that an authoritative joint


committee should be established to examine and report on this matter and other associated questions affecting the future employment of dock workers. This was agreed.
This committee has met on three occasions under the chairmanship of Lord Aldington, Chairman of the Port of London Authority, and Mr. Jack Jones, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and is to meet again this evening.
A preliminary statement by this committee was reported to the docks delegate conference on 14th June. The committee expects to produce an interim report, and it is the union's intention to submit this to the next delegate conference which it is calling.
As the House knows, unofficial strikes were called in all major ports on Friday, 16th June, in protest against an order made by the National Industrial Relations Court in connection with the Chobham Farm dispute. This is a dispute between men in two separate sections of the Transport and General Workers Union as to who should carry out the work of stuffing and stripping containers at this depot. I understand that decisions have already been taken to resume work in some ports, and I hope that by tomorrow a general resumption will have taken place.
The House will welcome the fact that the pay issues involved in the national dispute have been settled. The underlying employment problems are complex. It is for this reason that the employers suggested setting up the joint committee which was an essential part of the recommendation put to the union's delegate conference on 14th June.
The House will join me in hoping that the joint committee will be able to pursue its difficult task in an atmosphere free from industrial action.

Mr. Prentice: At the end of the railways dispute when the right hon. Gentleman made a statement I was unkind enough to chide him for hiding his embarrassment by making a brief statement. May I at least on this occasion congratulate him on changing his technique? This time he has made a long involved statement, which misses the main point.
Would the right hon. Gentleman at least agree that in the last few weeks this country has been dangerously close to a national dock strike and that we all owe a great debt to those who have been working to avert that strike and settle the issues? In his statement the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of Jack Jones and Lord Aldington, and they and others deserve all our support.
Is it not clear that all their efforts have been sabotaged by all the ridiculous goings-on in the National Industrial Relations Court on a series of cases during this period which have made the whole situation much more difficult for those working for a peaceful solution? Was not a climax reached on Thursday and Friday of last week when we were almost plunged into a national dock strike because of the events arising from the Chobham Farm case?
Would not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Government and the country were rescued from this disaster by the fortunate and unexpected appeal that was heard in the Appeal Court and by the decision of Lord Denning and his colleagues last Friday evening? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the Government will be as lucky as this next time?
Is it not clear that as long as the Industrial Relations Act remains on the Statute Book any small or local dispute in any industry in the country can escalate into a national crisis of this kind which can have disastrous effects for the national economy?
Finally, may I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that industrial relations, which are worse under the present Government than they were under any post-war Government, will get worse still as long as this Act is on the Statute Book, and that the only sensible course is to repeal it without delay?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that the House has listened for some time to a greater distortion of the facts than that.
There are two main points about this dispute. The first is that the national dispute on the extremely difficult problem of stripping and stuffing containers—a problem which has been bedevilling the docks for some time—was brought into the open by the National Industrial Relations Act, and a major step forward


towards solving it was taken in setting up the committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Jack Jones and Lord Aldington. It was the setting up of this committee, together with the agreement of the employers to some of the points put to them by the dock workers, that enabled the docks delegate conference to call off the national strike.
What brought the trouble back again was a dispute between two sections of the TGWU, which all the efforts of Mr. Jones have been unable to resolve. All that the NIRC did was to give to one group of work people the right of the law to take another to court, a right which was used by that group. The situation which was the immediate occasion of the latest industrial action could have arisen out of any action by any court; that is to say, against an order made for contempt.
As to the future, I hope that we shall be able to settle inter-union disputes as easily as we have been able to establish the Aldington-Jones Committee.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Since it is clear that with the best will in the world, and through no one's fault, many hundreds of dockers will be redundant in the near future, what steps are the Government taking to retrain these men and place them in suitable alternative employment?

Mr. Macmillan: The problem of redundancy among dock workers is one which the Aldington-Jones Committee is considering. There are two aspects of it. One is the work which may be provided for dock workers in the docks, which the committee is considering, and the other is severance arrangements and training, which also is a matter for its consideration.

Mr. Heffer: Even if one accepted the view of the right hon. Gentleman that it was an argument between two sections of workers, which I do not accept—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is it then?"] Even if one accepted that argument, is it not clear that the action of Sir John Donaldson and the National Industrial Relations Court made the situation far more difficult than it needed to be? Is it not clear that the time has come when the National Industrial Relations Court needs to be swept away as a first contribution towards good industrial rela-

tions in this country? Would he not agree that the basic issue cannot be solved by offering dockers £500 as a terminal payment? The basic issue is to ensure that the work which has always been traditionally dockers' work will become part and parcel of an agreement with the Transport and General Workers Union involving the dockers and giving them the continuity of employment which they need?

Mr. Macmillan: I understood that the union concerned did not regard the basic issue as one which could be solved by depriving one set of members of the union of their jobs and giving them to another set. This is certainly a dispute between employees. The employer concerned has made it plain that he is willing to agree to any reasonable solution put forward by the union if it can reach agreement on what the solution can be. As to the action of the Court in this, the hon. Member is right only on the assumption that the dock workers are entitled to consider themselves above and beyond the law.

Mr. Fidler: Would my right hon. Friend care to remind hon. Members opposite that the law of the land is the law binding on all, both employee and employer in industry, and hon. Members on both sides of this House? Would he be good enough to appeal to hon. Members opposite not to exacerbate situations but to obey the law which defends the rights of those engaged in industry on both sides, rather than fan the dangers of revolution to which we have been subjected—[Laughter.]

Mr. Macmillan: I am sure that no hon. Member could seriously defend any people or any section of the population who sought to defy the law.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which 1 am a member, has been conducting an inquiry into the nationalised dock industry for the last twelve months, that its report was laid on the Table a few days ago, that, although it has not yet been published because of printing delays, it will put before the House a recomendation that would go far to solve this insane dispute which Government policies have only exacerbated, and that it contains a


definite reference to stuffing and stripping and all that flows from it, which we have heard about today? Is he further aware that it is only my natural courtesy that prevents me saying that the Minister himself should get stuffed and stripped?

Mr. Macmillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his information, if not for his courtesy. The problems of containerisation and other forms of handling cargo are considerable. This is why it is so important—I hope that all sides will agree with this—that the authoritative committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Jones and Lord Aldington should be allowed to consider all possible suggestions for solving these problems. The unions and the employers are represented on this committee, so in this case it is a committee which can justly be called authoritative.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not intend to stop questions now, but I would point out that this is an Opposition Supply Day on unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside and that, so far as I can make out, every Yorkshire and Humberside Member wishes to speak. Therefore, I hope that questions will be brief.

Mr. Redmond: Would not contempt arise in any case in which people ignored any part of the High Court? Is it not true that we would not have got to this present result if three people had been rather less stupid and had appeared at the Court to make a defence of their situation, instead of waiting for the Official Solicitor to do it for them?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes; there have been cases in the past in which this sort of situation has arisen over an action brought before other courts.

Mr. Loughlin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that almost everyone in the House will be delighted at the progress made on wages and the fact that the committee has met to discuss the various issues with which the docks industry is faced? But would he also agree that the situation which was produced last week in which three dockers were liable to be arrested and imprisoned is a lesson that he should learn from the operation of the Industrial Relations Act? This will happen time and time again unless something

is done to remove this Act from the Statute Book.

Mr. Macmillan: When—especially when—a committee consisting of employers and employees has been set up, it is not at all unreasonable that a court should not give a judgment on the substantive issue but should seek to provide the conditions in which that issue can be settled generally and the blacking stopped in one particular situation. This is particularly so when that Court was doing so in response to an appeal from other members of the same trade union. It is the refusal of the dock workers concerned to respond to that court which led them into the situation they got into.

Mr. Fowler: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the last Government's proposals on industrial relations gave just as much potential for martyrdom as anything in the present Act? Would he not agree also that the essential point about the rule of law in industrial relations is that it still has the overwhelming support of the mass of the population?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that my hon. Friend is correct. I would also think that if these matters had got to any other form of court, the same sort of situation could of course have arisen. The answer is that it is not unreasonable that, in dealing with these matters, the law should be observed, and by all concerned.

Mr. Pardoe: Reverting to the pay and conditions offer which the right hon. Gentleman described, exactly what percentage does that offer represent? Was the Government's intention when they passed the Industrial Relations Act the same as that of the Appeal Court? If not, should the Act not be repealed or dramatically amended?

Mr. Macmillan: It is far too soon to say what, if any, amendment the Act will need in due course. Events have shown that it should in no circumstances be repealed. As to the amount of the increases, it is not an amount in a normal pay award but an increase paid out on a fund raised from a levy on the employers, and it is on their fall-back guarantee only.

Mr. Hastings: If, as a result of recent events, it may be found that there is some flaw in the Industrial Relations Act, would not my right hon. Friend agree


that the answer then must be to strengthen it and in no circumstances to abandon it?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend is being a little previous in assuming that there is a massive flaw in the Industrial Relations Act. Certainly the intention of the Act is that these matters should be conducted within a framework of law. The Government will certainly see that that is just what the Act will do.

Mr. Michael Stewart: In view of the answer that the Minister has now given to four of his hon. Friends about the importance of the rule of law, would he not agree that the law is binding on us all—all, including Sir John Donaldson?

Mr. Macmillan: That is not a matter into which I should like to go too deeply, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Sir John Donaldson is quarrelling with any decision of the higher court.

Sir G. Nabarro: While recognising that this is in considerable measure a dispute within a union, would my right hon. Friend tell the House and guide the general public on this single important point: how can the court or any other body deal with an internecine dispute within a union and within the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act when apparently there is no provision for dealing with a problem of that particular kind?

Mr. Macmillan: The court never sought to deal with the issue in an internecine dispute. It merely said that the parties to that dispute should refrain from acting illegally by blacking lorries until that dispute had been settled.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister recollect the assurances given by his predecessor and the Solicitor-General, that shop stewards would not be arrested and imprisoned in these circumstances? Therefore, would he accept the genuine thanks of all those on this side of the House who are deeply interested in industrial relations that the Government have found a way of not sentencing these shop stewards to imprisonment? Would he accept our thanks for that act?

Mr. Macmillan: I must make it plain that the hon. Gentleman is totally mistaken. I understand that the Master of the Rolls made a statement in which he

made it plain that there was no Government intervention.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In view of what the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) saw fit to say about Mr. Justice Donaldson, is not it rather premature to crow over a judgment of first instance which has been reversed by the Court of Appeal where there is an appeal to the higher court in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for reminding the House that such an appeal has been lodged.

Mr. Orme: Would not the Minister agree that the container dispute in the docks is not between two sets of union members but was created by the ship owners and dock employers by creating container ports and refusing to have dockers originally because they would have to pay them more money? Is not that the basis of the problem? Regarding the operation of the National Industrial Relations Court at present and the threat of imprisonment—which the present Leader of the House said would not be possible under the Industrial Relations Act because the Government were taking action so that that could not happen, but which has happened, although it has been set aside by the Appeal Court—would the Minister agree that Sir John Donaldson is a disaster and ought to be removed?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that containers were introduced in the United Kingdom—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is not allowed to say that. A reflection on a judge of the High Court can be made only on a substantive Motion. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the phrase "a disaster".

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is totally out of place for remarks of that sort—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is going too far to describe a judge of the High Court as a disaster. It is one of the rules of the House that a reflection, indeed, upon the Chair, or upon a number of people,


or upon a judge of the High Court, can only be made by substantive Motion. I must ask the hon. Member for Salford. West to withdraw that phrase.

Mr. Orme: Mr. Speaker, your ruling, which I respect, brings in the whole issue of what we want, which is open political discussion and dispute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Mr. Speaker: May I help the hon. Gentleman? There is no objection to that kind of discussion on a substantive Motion, but it requires a substantive Motion. Therefore, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the phrase now from his supplementary question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: On the question of the withdrawal of an unparliamentary expression I must insist.

Mr. Orme: I was about to accede to your request, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw the remark I made, but say that Sir John Donaldson's decision was national disaster.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, In view of the replies that have been given in response to questions from this side of the House in this exchange, has not the Secretary of State for Employment on a number of occasions given replies which appear to support the Donaldson court as against the Denning court—if I may use that kind of shorthand—and has he not on a number of occasions appeared to give his approval to the earlier ruling as against the second ruling?
My point of order, which is quite separate from that of my hon. Friend, is this. Is it not intolerable that the House of Commons should have to proceed to discuss these matters without being able to debate the implications of the sub judice ruling or advice given by the Procedure Committee? May we have your support, Mr. Speaker, in view of the rulings that you have to give on these matters, in urging, as the Opposition have urged, that we should dispose of this matter as speedily as possible in the sense of having a debate in the House about the Procedure Committee's Report, and the question of sub judice and whether it is tolerable for a

Minister to make the kind of remarks which have been made by the Secretary of State about one court as against another?

Mr. Speaker: That would appear to be a very appropriate question for business questions on a Thursday. It is not a point of order. Right hon. and hon. Members are entitled to express opinions as long as they do not cast reflections. If they want to cast reflections—I agree that it is a difficult line to draw—there must be a Motiton. I take note of the fact that the hon. Member for Salford, West has withdrawn the phrase, and I am grateful to him for that. That phrase went beyond our line.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I was about to call the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) for a supplementary question shortly, but he may have forfeited his right.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is fair that we should challenge your ruling, because what you now seem to be saying—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may certainly challenge it, but he must do that by Motion.

Mr. Atkinson: Are you now saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is not within the power of the House to discuss the competence of a judge in coming to a particular conclusion?

Mr. Speaker: In my view, the ruling of a court can be discussed in certain circumstances. I indicated the other day where I thought the onus, the burden, lay. As I said on the other occasion, if it is a matter of wide political and industrial relations interest, the onus must be upon those who wish to assert the sub judice rule. I do not think that at present there is anything sub judice, in connection with this particular statement. There is nothing sub judice on that at present, so no question arises. But, when it comes to casting aspersions or casting reflections, there are certain rules, and when it comes to disagreeing with the ruling of the Chair it must be done by Motion.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although hon. Members on the Government side of the House may not regard this as important, it is important. I attended a conference of my trade union last week, at which a matter was raised with me in relation to the judge, and it was said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With great respect to the hon. Member, I cannot possibly be expected to rule upon what took place at a conference. I have dealt with this matter. I have to bear in mind all the Yorkshire Members who wish to speak in the debate later. I must try to protect their interests. I have ruled absolutely clearly that there is nothing sub judice at present on this statement. I will not allow reflections upon a Member of the High Court. The reflection has been withdrawn. If there is any criticism of my ruling, it must be done by Motion. We must now conclude the business on this statement.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. You did not hear me out, Mr. Speaker. I was going to say that if I then wished, during a speech or question in this House, to refer to statements made at my trade union conference, or made anywhere else for that matter, which might be considered as a reflection upon a judge, would I, or any other hon. Member, be allowed to make a statement of that kind? You may not consider it important, but I consider it to be a matter of grave importance because of the position hon. Members and the whole trade union movement have been placed in by the Court in relation to the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has no right to say that I do not regard the matter as important. I do regard it as important, and I shall certainly rule should the situation arise. The hon. Member is asking me a hypothetical question. The curious thing about all this sub judice argument is that I have only once stopped a question and only once agreed to the stopping of a Motion and on the Motion it was in regard to its terms and not because it was a Motion. I will rule on the lines I have indicated as and when each question arises.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the

results of the last few days in connection with the National Industrial Relations Court of the Industrial Relations Act, it is clear to the public and everyone else that the Court and the Act, and the working through of the Act up to now, have not been detrimental in any way to the trade unions as a whole or to any single trade unionist?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that is so, but it must be remembered that the trouble that arose over Chobham Farm was related not directly to the nature of the dispute but to a refusal of one group of workers to attend the Court and the consequent judgment of contempt

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Sir Elwyn Jones: That is the third time that the Secretary of State has taken the view that the decision of Sir John Donaldson is the correct one, and he seems to be repudiating the decision of the Court of Appeal, which has certainly quashed the contempt orders. Is it not imperative that the right hon Gentleman should be more cautious in making observations of this kind?

Mr. Macmillan: I have made absolutely no comment whatsoever upon the judgment of Sir John Donaldson or that of the Appeal Court. I have said only that the action arose out of contempt and not out of the issue involved.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Chobham Farm depot is in my constituency, as you know, Mr. Speaker. I wrote to you hoping to be able to put a question about the matter. I was the only Member of Parliament who took the trouble on Friday to go down and see these people. I spoke to them, and I paid tribute to the police and to the men for their good humour and for the way in which they conducted themselves. I was asked to convey to the Prime Minister and to the Ministers concerned the views of these men. They said that they could not believe that there would be any honesty or sincerity on the part of the Government. Before the "Good Fairy" arrived they said that they thought the whole thing was crooked. They believed that the Government would take action to see that they did not go to gaol, and they said they felt that the Industrial Relations Act was crooked also. They said that as a


political man, who was supposed to be a judge and who was a former active Tory, was involved, they had no confidence—

Mr. Speaker: That is enough.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: That is enough. The rest of this interesting communication must be made in writing.

Mr. Lewis: Can I finish by saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Speaker: Enough is enough. Mr. Macmillan.

Mr. Macmillan: rose—

Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order. You have ruled, quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot say anything which impugns the integrity or competence of a High Court judge. But surely we can point out that he was a Conservative Party official a short time ago? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was intervening not because of the content of the question but because of its length. Mr. Macmillan.

Mr. Macmillan: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister wish to reply?

Mr. Macmillan: I must remind the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that the application that was heard by the National Industrial Relations Court on 12th June was an application by representatives of the workers at Chobham Farm and that on 14th June the plaintiffs reported to the National Industrial Relations Court.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They reckon that it is all crooked. What about Friday?

Mr. Macmillan: Therefore, any action which stemmed from it which the hon. Gentleman's constituents complained about was action taken by fellow members of the Transport and General Workers Union.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: He is a prominent Tory.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must keep quiet. I now call the Minister for Aerospace to make his statement.

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, STAINES

The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, I will make a statement about the tragic accident yesterday to a British European Airways Trident aircraft.
BEA Trident I, G-ARPI (Papa India), on flight BE 548 from Heathrow to Brussels, crashed yesterday just south of the Staines bypass a few minutes after take-off at 1709. One hundred and nine passengers and nine crew all lost their lives as a result of the disaster. I am sure the House will wish to join the Secretary of State and me in expressing deepest sympathy with the friends and relatives of those who were killed in the first major accident that has befallen a Trident aircraft in commercial service. The Chairman of the British Airways Board, Mr. David Nicolson, has also asked me to tell the House of the deep sorrow of himself, the Chairman of BEA, Mr. Henry Marking, and all their colleagues for those bereaved in this terrible accident.
The aircraft took off normally from Heathrow, cleared initially to 1,500 feet. After take-off the pilot received and acknowledged clearance to 6,000 feet, which was the last message received from him. The flight data recorder has been recovered from the wreckage undamaged and a preliminary readout shows that the undercarriage and flaps were raised normally; that the autopilot was engaged at about 400 feet in accordance with normal procedure; and that the aircraft reached a height of about 1,750 feet at a speed of 160 knots. At this stage the wing leading edge droop mechanism started to retract and the aircraft entered the stalling régime. Almost immediately afterwards, the autopilot became disconnected and a high rate of descent began to buildup whilst the aircraft assumed a very marked nose-up attitude. Its angle of descent during the last 500 feet was greater than 60 and it struck the ground in an almost level attitude.
The calculated stalling speed of this aircraft in this configuration and weight


was about 178 knots. The normal speed range for raising the leading edge wing droop is 225–250 knots. The effect of removing the droop is consistent with the flight path of the aircraft as determined from the flight recorder and confirmed by eye-witnesses. The investigation continues to try to establish what was the reason for the droop being removed at such a low speed and altitude. A comprehensive team of experts from the Accidents Investigation Branch and the operator commenced work on the site very shortly after the accident, and they will probe every aspect of this disaster, including the circumstances in which a fire broke out during the attempted rescue operations.
In view of the gravity of this disaster and of public concern, the Secretary of State has decided that there should be a public inquiry. The Lord Chancellor is being invited to appoint a Commissioner and Assessors for this purpose and a report will be published. In the intervening period, any factual information of importance to the safety of Trident aircraft which emerges from the preliminary investigations will be passed immediately to the appropriate safety authorities.

Mr. Mason: May I immediately associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the hon. Gentleman's expressions of sympathy to all the relatives and friends of those who died in the disaster, especially when the whole House knows that the Trident aircraft has had such an excellent record?
May I also ask the hon. Gentleman to take all possible steps to speed up the inquiry on three aspects in particular? I refer first to the droop problem that he mentioned, to establish that no structural or engine weaknesses are developing in this configuration of aircraft. Secondly, will he state as quickly as he can that no sabotage was involved? The third aspect is whether the observance of noise regulations has any bearing on the accident.
Further, why is there not a helicopter at Heathrow Airport manned and fully equipped with medical supplies so that it can take off and go to any aircraft accident within a short radius of the airport?
Finally, I feel—and I think the hon. Gentleman feels—that something must

be done to halt the sightseers who act like vultures descending on death scenes. They hamper the rescue operations, and they could lead to a higher death toll. The hon. Gentleman should make sure that the police are given some authority to cordon off areas and take steps to deal with intruders. I am sure the House would support such a move.

Mr. Heseltine: The speeding-up of the inquiry is something we should all like to see, but a large number of very detailed investigations must be undertaken before it can get under way. Therefore, while we want to see the inquiry procedure implemented as fast as possible, it might be irresponsible of me to promise that that can happen in the immediate future. But I can say that the Accident Investigation Branch of my Department started work very shortly after the accident and any urgently-needed information that emerges will be passed on to those responsible in either the operation or the manufacturing side of the industry.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about structural or engine weaknesses. This is a matter on which we shall obtain a lot of information, and already have, from the black box, which has been recovered. It will be probed at the public inquiry, but I do not believe that there is any ground for anxiety on that count at this stage.
I can give a similar preliminary assurance about sabotage. There is no indication that sabotage took place.
The indications are that any noise abatement procedures would have been completed at a lower altitude than that which the aircraft had reached satisfactorily, so that there is a prima facie case for assuming that those procedures were in no way involved, although of course the matter will be probed at the public inquiry.
I shall look into the question of the helicopter service, but the House will understand that in a disaster of this sort the good that could be done by one helicopter, even with the crew it could carry, would be relatively restricted.
The right hon. Gentleman's last point—the extraordinary fascination that such disasters seem to have for a large number of people—is particularly important. Walking around the site last night, I


found it inexplicable why so many people, many with their young children, seemed to want to come and have a look. In this case it could not have done any harm because there were no survivors, but it is easy to envisage circumstances in which the appalling queues of traffic and pedestrians—I abandoned my car four or five miles from the site to get forward—could have caused the most appalling disaster, with people seriously injured at such a disaster not getting to hospital quickly enough. I do not believe that the police are short of powers. The problem is that they have all their efforts concentrated on the rescue operations. But my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be receiving a report on the matter from the Police Commissioner for the Metropolis and will look at that point with great care.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: May I first express my own condolences to the next of kin of the crew and passengers and also pay my own tribute to the police, firemen and ambulance workers who went to the scene of the crash? This was the most appalling tragedy we have had in civil aviation in this country, and it could have been just that much worse if the aircraft had fallen on to Staines. Therefore, may I ask whether there was anything uncharacteristic about the Trident's takeoff and whether my hon. Friend is satisfied with a take-off pattern that allows an aircraft when climbing, and therefore at its most vulnerable to failure, to fly so close to a densely-populated area?

Mr. Heseltine: Many of the areas around Heathrow Airport are densely populated, and great care is exercised in choosing the aircraft routes with regard to the layout of the population below. But the aircraft was off course. All the issues raised will be examined at the public inquiry.

Mr. Russell Johnston: May I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy at this ghastly disaster? I have two questions. The first is in technical terms. The Minister referred to the droop and the fact that it had been retracted before it should have been. It presumably lost aircraft lift. Is that entirely under automatic control or entirely under manual

control, or is either optional? While it is true that BEA has a first-class safety record, it also seems to be horribly true that if a modern airliner crashes the chances of survival are very slim. What research is being directed by BEA or the hon. Gentleman's Department towards increasing the chances of survival under crash conditions?

Mr. Heseltine: The droop procedure is a manual procedure on the aircraft. Safety in aviation is a subject of massive investment and expenditure by the manufacturers and of continued care and attention by those responsible for air traffic safety. The amount of testing and the duplication and triplication of equipment in aircraft are all designed to ensure the remarkable safety record that aircraft can nowadays show on any examination. There are 72 Tridents of all types now flying, and they have completed 566,000 hours' flying. That indicates the immense care taken from a safety point of view, but I will look at the actual effects of impact such as the hon. Gentleman raises.

Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend accept from me as well as from the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that we all urge upon him the utmost speed in publishing the results of the inquiry, which commonly takes well over a year? Particularly as several parts of his statement have contained what many people would regard as some implication of mishandling of the aircraft, will he make further statements, or arrange that further statements are made, during the course of the inquiry when it is possible to rule out any cause which has been discussed in public, as soon as it can be ruled out?

Mr. Heseltine: I fully appreciate the anxiety of my hon. Friend and the whole House for the inquiry to proceed with all speed, but from the inquiries I have been able to make so far I am impressed by the depth of research that must anticipate any meaningful inquiry. It would be regrettable if an inquiry were to get under way and then had to hold itself in suspension while further investigatory work was carried out. But I am as keen as my hon. Friend is to ensure that, compatible with doing a thorough job, the inquiry is carried out as quickly as possible. As to the possible implications


of what I have said today in my attempting to give the House such information as I could give, interpretations should not be written into what I have said. It is always possible to say nothing. That is the totally safe thing. But it is important from the point of view not only of the operators and those concerned with the aircraft but of the future passengers to give as much information as I can at this early stage.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the only small comfort that can be drawn from this terrible disaster is that the aircraft happened to fall on unoccupied ground, and that no residents of London were involved. He will also agree that perhaps that makes it even more necessary to point out that no form of travel is entirely immune from accidents and that, therefore, we should take the utmost steps to ensure that if such an accident does occur people on the ground are not involved in it. That makes it all the more necessary to press on as quickly as possible with the third London airport, so that aircraft land and take-off over areas in which large numbers of the population are not put at even the slightest risk.
Finally, I was within range of the airport when the accident occurred. I was in a car and heard it coming over the air. Recognising that I could do nothing to help, I drove away from the area rather than towards it. I am only to sorry that other people did not do the same.

Mr. Heseltine: I certainly associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. If there is any benefit, it is the fact that so few people on the ground were affected. It could have been much more serious.
It is the Government's determination to press on as fast as possible with the building of the Maplin Sands Airport to bring it into operation at the end of this decade.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: In view of the deplorable incidents which took place after this dreadful disaster, will my hon. Friend consider having discussions with representatives of the news media about the possibility of withholding the news of

such disasters for several hours so that rescue operations can take place unhindered?

Mr. Heseltine: To withhold the news would present difficulties. If one started to think through the possibilities all sorts of anxieties would arise. I fully sympathise with the spirit behind my hon. Friend's question. It may be possible to enlist some help from the news media to encourage the public to do what the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) did, which was to drive in the opposite direction. This is a line of thought that we might be able to pursue

Dr. Miller: I also should like to associate myself with the condolences expressed by hon. Members to the relatives of those who lost their lives. A large number of members of the medical profession from Scotland are involved. The staff of the hospitals involved will have lost people of tremendous value to the people of Scotland.
As the automatic procedure had taken over at the usual point in the upward flight, may I ask whether new instructions have been issued to BEA to alter that procedure, and that the pilot, instead of switching to automatic, should continue, at least until the outcome of the inquiry, to continue the flight by manual means?

Mr. Heseltine: I am not aware that the introduction of the automatic pilot at 400 feet, which is normal procedure, could be said to have had any impact upon this particular flight. That would be a matter for the operator, BEA, to investigate. I should be surprised if it was felt that this was a contributory factor, although I am sure that BEA will read what the hon. Gentleman has said.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Whitehead: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for taking two more minutes from the time that has been allocated for the grave matters to be discussed today.
I wish to bring the attention of the House to the ruling at Four o'clock on Friday when the House was considering the Lords Amendments to the National


Health Service (Family Planning) Amendment Bill. The last two Lords Amendments, one inserting a new subsection and the other removing the old one, were considered and debated together. The Question was put at two minutes to Four o'clock. Because hon. Gentleman shouted "No" and did not put on Tellers when a Division was called, the formal putting of the final and consequential Amendment fell after the stroke of Four o'clock. The Chair accordingly ruled that further consideration should be deferred until today. However, today's business is public business, and there is no more time this Session for Private Members' business. So, although the Bill has passed every stage in both Houses with overwhelming support and is complete and final except for one formal assent, technically it falls.
Mr. Speaker Lowther in 1919—the case is quoted on page 290 of Erskine May—ruled that interrupted business could be taken after Four o'clock on a Friday. On that occasion, further consideration of Lords Amendments went on for half an hour after the time of interruption. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling, either now or perhaps tomorrow, on the procedure in a case such as that of last Friday, when a final series of Lords Amendments had been approved without a Division, whether the Bill should be allowed to fall on this technicality of one last formal assent coming after the stroke of four o'clock.
I am sure that all of us wish the procedure of this House to be followed, but also that the proceedings should conform with what appears to be common sense. I wonder whether you could rule on this dilemma, Mr. Speaker, which is a dilemma not merely for the sponsors of the Bill but for the whole House if Private Members Bills are to be meaningful.

Mr. Speaker: This is an important matter from the point of view of Private Members' Bills. I should like to consider it and will rule tomorrow.

DOCKS (CHOBHAM FARM CONTAINER DEPOT)

Mr. Pardoe: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the danger of a national docks dispute arising out of application of the Industrial Relations Act to the Chobham Farm dispute.
We, as a nation, have just drawn back from a major national disaster. Although it is now time to draw breath with relief, it is no time for complacency. There is no certainty that the danger is over. This afternoon the Secretary of State said:
I understand that decisions have already been taken to resume work in some ports and I hope that by tomorrow a general resumption will have taken place.
There is no certainty that peace will last. Passions are high. Picketing is likely to start again. We do not know what consequences will flow. This time the evidence of picketing by certain specific persons may be more concrete than it was before. There may be those who would like to make it more concrete. It is a specific dispute.
The whole docks industry is now dependent on what happens at this new container depot at Chobham Farm. There is no need to emphasise to the House the disastrous consequences of a national dock strike.
The matter requires urgent consideration, in my view, because if this House has any influence at all it must exercise it now, not after the disaster has struck. There may indeed be some who wish to show that the democratic institutions cannot solve this particular problem. If we fail to discuss it, we shall be playing into their hands.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I have also had regard to the exchanges earlier this aftenoon in the House. I am afraid that I must refuse the application.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[22ND ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE REGION

Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) to move the Motion, I should inform the House that I have selected the Amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I beg to move
That this House, disturbed that the Yorkshire and Humberside Region has suffered increased unemployment and loss of job prospects in the last two years, deeply concerned at the worsening structural employment in the Region created by rationalisation of its staple industries of coal, steel, textiles, engineering, ports and docks, as well as the associated environmental problems, draws attention to the fact that earnings, hours worked and employment in the growth industries are tending to fall behind levels in other Regions, including growth of new technologically based industry; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to undertake an urgent reappraisal of its measures to give to its people greater faith in a more prosperous future.
This is possibly the first time, certainly in my 20 years of parliamentary life, that we have had the opportunity of debating the problems of Yorkshire and Humberside.
This debate is due entirely to the Opposition having given up one day of their Supply days, therefore giving both sides and all the Yorkshire Members of Parliament the right and chance to highlight unemployment and industrial difficulties in their districts.
Yorkshire and Humberside have had a genuine grievance about regional development for some years. For some time we have witnessed the vortex of the South and South-East sucking in manpower, materials and finance, and gradually denuding the northern areas of professional and skilled manpower. To offset this economic imbalance, development districts and then development areas were created not in Yorkshire and Humberside, but in Scotland, the North-East. Wales and other parts of the country.

thereby exacerbating the persistent problem of the Yorkshire region—that what moveable industry existed was by-passing Yorkshire, and manpower migration continued, particularly among the non manual labour and professional classes.
The West Riding County Council conducted a survey which showed that 60,000 people left the area between 1961 and 1971, whilst just a short time prior to the survey Board of Trade figures showed that between 1945 and 1965, a span of 20 years, the movement of manufacturing industry into the region created only24,500 new jobs—about 1,200 a year This was only a trickle of what was required. All of us know that one pit closure in Yorkshire can create a job loss of at least 1,000. Even now, since intermediate status has been granted, the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council has stated that the number of industrial development certificates being issued shows that the inflow is still terribly insufficient to replace the job losses which have occurred and are still occurring.
We all recognise that some areas were much worse than Yorkshire and that their needs were much more urgent and greater. But the problems which created their situation are now very much evident in our region. The five main groups of industries that have traditionally sustained a large proportion of the employment in the region—coal mining, steel, textiles, clothing and footwear, and construction—have all declined rapidly in recent years. Four of them—coal mining, steel, textiles and construction—have lost 101,000 jobs in the last five years, while the distributive trades have lost 26,000 jobs. This is a total of 127,000 jobs lost in five years, and unfortunately the trend is continuing.
The Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council concluded only last March that up to 1975 there would be a further decline in coal mining of 30,000 to 35,000 jobs, that steel rationalisation by the British Steel Corporation would mean a considerable loss of jobs in Sheffield, Scunthorpe and Rotherham, and that at least 3,500 jobs would be lost to Scunthorpe as a result of the Anchor scheme developments. This dramatic gap between job loss and job creation is still large and as yet there is no sign that it is being bridged.
All this has been much aggravated during the last two years. Unemployment has soared to the highest figure in post-war years in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. In June, 1970, the figure for wholly unemployed men was 44,814; in November, 1971, it had risen to 70,046; in February, 1972, it had risen to 76,237, and as recently as April it was still at 75,433, a 70 per cent. increase in male unemployment. For wholly unemployed women, the figure in June, 1970, was 5,556; in November, 1971, it had risen to 9,701; in February last it was 10,258 and in April it was 11,402; an increase in female unemployment of 105 per cent.
Within these figures some of our towns are suffering chronic unemployment. Although I have taken travel-to-work areas, one must recognise that some of the spots within the areas have greater percentages than those I am about to reveal. In Bradford, the unemployment rate is 6 per cent., in Castleford 6·1 per cent., in Doncaster 7·5 per cent., in Barnsley 7·8 per cent., in Hull 8·1 per cent., in Mexborough 9·8 per cent, and in Hemsworth 12·8 per cent.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that these are figures of male unemployment?

Mr. Mason: The figures given are of the wholly unemployed for the travel-to-work areas in the towns and districts I have mentioned. The full list will be revealed to the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to see it, if he studies HANSARD of last Wednesday. It was given in reply to a Written Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall).
Why has this situation come about? Why is it that the unemployment figures are so high? I can give the answer in one sentence. It is because under this Government business confidence has been shattered and industrial investment has slumped. The Prime Minister and the Government, dogmatic, uncaring, adopting a ruthless attitude, heedless of other opinions, rejected all our planned aid to the regions, with "Stand on your own two feet" as their criterion. Their creed was, "Stop aid, introduce the liquidator, pick up the bits, besmirch industry".
They stopped investment grants; they abolished the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation; the National Board for Prices and Incomes was killed stone dead; they cut out the core of the Industrial Expansion Act and cut public expenditure in the nationalised industries. All price restraint ceased and prices started to soar. Because of this, business and industrial confidence was shattered in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
One of the main results of the price inflation was the staggering increase in the first half of 1971 of 10·4 per cent, in prices, nearly twice as high as in early 1970 and the highest rate for 30 years. As a consequence, wages chased prices, industries began to shed labour, morale in the regions sank to its lowest ebb, there was no planned expansion and unemployment ran out of control, like a snowball going downhill, gathering momentum and growing larger in size. It brought the peak of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside to 76,000 men and nearly 11,500 women—increases of 70 per cent and 105 per cent, respectively.
School leavers, too, are being hit hard. Almost every town in the region is finding it increasingly difficult to find jobs for young people. One typical case is that of Sheffield, where 6,000 school leavers are expected on the labour market next month, with only 1,300 jobs available. The city's careers office has stated that unemployment has doubled in the last 12 months and is now five times as high as it was in 1970. In Yorkshire and Humberside, young people now have an only one in three chance of getting a job at all, and these figures are worse than the national figures of 39 jobs available for every 100 unemployed young people.
It is the job of the Government to create the climate for our regions to grow and in that they have clearly failed. Now, of course, we have a panic reaction to set it right. What a price after two years! We already feel—and certainly business and investors feel—that the Government have set the nation back five years, and every financial and business commentator in every serious newspaper is stating that devaluation is now beginning to rear its head again.
What has been offered to Yorkshire and Humberside in this panic reaction? I think that there are some credits—the


house improvement scheme, slum clearance and the dereliction grants. They are all necessarily interlinked to better the environment and to create jobs. Secondly, the region has been granted intermediate status and this is to be followed by the Industry Bill.
Part, therefore, of the strategy required to brighten up our regions, improve the environment, halt dilapidation and improve the industrial structure has now begun. But we want other evidence from the Government that within this new strategy Yorkshire and Humberside will not be overlooked and by-passed and that job creation will be recognised as of paramount importance. We must still bear in mind that in some of our region's main industries the demand for labour will decline, creating further job shortages, both in numbers and in variety. This decline of our major industries is still the most serious problem. Secondly, migration has kept our unemployment figures lower than they would have been otherwise, and this, with the increase in the number of children staying on at school, has masked the true and rather grimmer situation.
Thirdly, the national supply of mobile industry is limited. We have been starved of the national financial inducements granted to encourage mobile industry in the past. Because we still have development status versus intermediate status, this starvation is likely to continue. Fourthly, no new towns are envisaged in our region. We have to recognise what an effect the building of a new town has upon the creation of jobs in other regions and the spin off which such a development produces.
Fifthly, the region has a low proportion of its employment in public administration so there is scope for the introduction of more offices, Government Departments and nationalised industries. Equally, there are other opportunities for industries in the region to take a greater share of Government contracts. What is most disturbing in Yorkshire and Humberside is the picture revealed by the analysis of the abstract of regional statistics for 1971. Over the earnings spectrum Yorkshire and Humberside in 1970 produced earnings well below other regions with a comparable industrial make-up.
The wages were the lowest in the country apart from East Anglia and the

South-West. In the same year 92·1 per cent of adult employees earned less than £24 per week. Only in East Anglia was I here a higher percentage and that was by only 1 per cent. The average hourly earnings in the region are the lowest in the country other than agricultural East Anglia and are even lower than in Scotland. Yorkshire and Humberside has the lowest income per week and the lowest income per household of any region in England.
This reveals that we have what is virtually a static economy with no growth being evident. We compare badly in earnings and purchasing power per family with all other regions. This emphasises our claim that Yorkshire and Humberside has in real terms been a relatively silent sufferer while other regions have received the care and attention of Governments. What are our needs? We have gone through every report, the Yorkshire and Humberside reports, the regional strategy on growth industries, special studies on Doncaster, Huddersfield, Colne Valley, Halifax and Calder Valley and Humberside. They reveal that the major, persisting problem is dereliction. There is still a vast backlog of industrial dereliction which urgently needs tackling.
The West Riding County Council has a fine team of specialists spearheading a drive to clear up its part of the region. In spite of local government reorganisation it would make sense to use this team as a county unit. It is probably the best land reclamation team in the country. Allied with the expertise in the rest of the region there could be a drive to clear the area of its industrial waste and dilapidation, and of its image of the old industrial revolution infrastructure. Linked with this is the need for more Government intervention to spur the nationalised industries, private enterprise and local authorities into a more imaginative and urgent approach to the problem.
First of all then, dereliction must be tackled. Secondly, there is the question of communications. North and south road and rail communications are good but east to west, particularly opening up the Humberside area, is not progressing fast enough. Opening up Humberside has great potential. There is ample land and space for industrial sites and people.


Because of the physical planning advantages a high quality development of the area could be planned. We could develop a fine city region providing excellent living and working conditions in an attractive and healthy part of our county. Trade and traffic is bound to increase in the eastern sector of our region, especially as trade with Europe expands. With imagination and Government backing this could be the equivelant in our region to the development of a new town.
Still dealing with communications there remains the running argument about the development of a Yorkshire or regional airport. Yeadon has been frustrated; the Minister has said that there shall be no extension of the runway. There is still discussion going on about the likelihood of a development at Balne Moor or Thorne Waste and also there is always the possible future civil development of one of the RAF stations. It is time that the Government gave a lead to the county about their thinking on airport requirements, designed to satisfy our needs beyond 1975.
I come to county blackspots. The Economic and Planning Council in its regional strategy report said that Barnsley, Doncaster, the central coalfield covering Hems worth, South Kirby and the Dearne Valley and what are called the Five Towns—Pontefract, Castleford, Nottingley, Normanton and Featherstone—had been dominated by coalmining and that these mono-economies were collapsing. It said that there was and would continue to be a chronic shortage of male jobs. That is self-evident and it looks like continuing. Consideration must be given by the Government to these districts and to giving them development area status or, under the Industry Bill, a special examination with a view to financing new projects using selective financial assistance.
There is a need for more national Government offices in the region, and I am thinking particularly of the headquarters of nationalised industries. I have been impressed with the headquarters of Yorkshire Television in Leeds. It is employing more than 800 people, most in good salary brackets. It encourages people to live in the area and causes a good usage of hotels. In total, Yorkshire Television generates £4 million

worth of purchasing power in the district annually.
Why cannot the headquarters of the National Coal Board, with its 1,000 employees, be established say, in Doncaster, with a similar effect? Why cannot the British Steel Corporation's headquarters be established in Sheffield or another steel town in northern England, thereby helping to generate jobs, improve communications and bring about hotel development and an increase in purchasing power?
I am sure there is no reason why, with such good communications north and south, more of these major headquarters should not be sited where the work is done. I am impressed by the case made by the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council that there ought to be a Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association to "sell" the county. We all know that there is a proliferation of these associations, in the West Riding, Sheffield, Doncaster, Rotherham and most of the other towns, all of which have their individual development officers. Consideration should be given to welding these associations and experts—with Government backing—into a Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association where ideas, effort, finance and overheads could be pooled into one major selling campaign.
We have low-price land, available sites, low-priced housing and available labour, greatly improved communications. Allied with the Government's selective financial assistance the region could be "sold" as a whole.
I am being brief because I know that there are a number of my hon. Friends who wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. There are many other matters I could raise, such as whether retraining is sufficient to satisfy the new growth industries that are beginning to emerge? Is the industrial training scheme really working? Is Yorkshire catering for the disabled unemployed and taking up its quota? What about the growing pool of the over 55-year-old miners, who will need special attention?
I have said enough to paint a broad picture of our problems. I do not think that our region is depressed and it need not have a depressing future. It does however convey the impression of being static and lacking the necessary growth


to keep pace with the attractions of financial incentives and inducements granted to other regions. The region has an underlying strength with its basic industries and its potential in the newer industries of electronics, plastics processing, Pharmaceuticals, mechanical engineering and food manufacture. However, it has an urgent need for an environmental drive, for brighter amenities to attract and to hold people and industries, and for better communications to open up the east, and a special appraisal of selected areas and positive use of selective financial assistance.
Given this sort of attention by the Government, our region and its people need not shiver at the prospects for their future. Yorkshire and Humberside are part of the heartland of our nation. We cannot afford to neglect that heartland, and we call upon the Government to give it that specialised attention which it deserves.

4.51 p.m.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
'welcomes the decision of Her Majesty's Government to make the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside an intermediate area, the introduction of cash grants towards capital expenditure on buildings, the expansion of the road building programme, and in particular the Humber Bridge scheme; and endorses the Government's measure to obtain a sustained and faster growth rate in the economy and so bring permanent improvements in employment and living standards throughout Britain'.
I welcome very much the opportunity afforded by this debate to discuss the future of the Yorkshire and Humberside region and I am very glad that the Opposition should have chosen this subject for discussion today. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has covered a lot of ground with commendable brevity. I will do my best to follow him because I know that there is a large number of right hon. and hon. Members who are anxious to take part in the debate.
I am bound to say, while welcoming the Motion, that even by the partisan standards of Opposition Motions on Supply days this particular Opposition Motion leaves a lot to be desired. For a start, no realistic description of the region's difficulties can begin from the

assumption that the problems of the region are two years old. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks, and making a careful analysis, took a realistic line about this; it was only a little later in his speech that he began a caricature of what has happened in the last two years, and in that, I feel, he departed from reality. The plain fact is, and the whole House knows it, that the three basic industries of coal, steel, and textiles have been shedding labour for a very long time.
The Hunt Committee, which was set up by the last Administration, was absolutely clear in the forecast which it gave to the then Government. It reported in 1969 after a period in which unemployment in the region had risen by 79 per cent. compared with a national increase of 31 per cent., and it told the Government about the
manpower contraction in the coal mining industry; a likely reduction in the labour force in the steel industry and the region; the run down in the textile industry and the special problem of Hull arising from its isolation and above average unemployment
The Hunt Committee made a number of recommendations to the Government and a good many of these were turned down by the previous Administration. I shall come in due course to the measures which the present Government have taken, many of them in acceptance of the Hunt Committee recommendtions, which, as I said, were refused by the previous Administration.
I turn first to the three basic industries, to which the right hon. Gentleman himself addressed a large part of his remarks, and which are a continuing cause of concern, I know, in the region.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: rose—

Mr. Chataway: Let me continue a little further first. I do not wish to take up too much time.
Both the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation have, as we know, to carry through essential rationalisation measures. The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest that it would be of any advantage to the region or to Britain to attempt, either in the public or the private sector, to halt such rationalisation, and he knows, and I am sure it would be accepted on both sides of the House, that for a region such as


this it is essential that we should back those industries which have a future and we should not stand in the way of industries which are equipping themselves to compete in the modern world. In both coal mining and steel we have to recognise that this rationalisation will in the years ahead have further employment implications.
There has been a good deal of discussion about the volume of demand for which the BSC ought to aim in 1980. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry made a statement recently about that and we are awaiting the British Steel Corporation's further announcement later in the year. It is obviously vitally important to this region as to other regions that that estimate for 1980 should be neither too high nor too low. If it is low, employment opportunities are missed; if it is too high there is obviously a danger, if the target is not reached, that the British Steel Corporation will, at a later date, have to embark on a large number of closures.
I hope there will be no misunderstanding about the scale of the investment in steel now taking place. In his purple passage towards the beginning of his speech the right hon. Member for Barnsley talked about a cutback in investment in nationalised industries. As he will well know, nationalised industry investment has been brought forward to help, particularly in the regions. This is of importance to Yorkshire. What are the investment figures there? Nationally, investment in steel is currently running at £265 million—

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Chataway: No. Let me finish this.

Mr. Griffiths: Speak to Yorkshire.

Mr. Chataway: I will come to Yorkshire in just a second.
Investment in steel nationally is running at £265 million, three times the investment which was taking place in the last year of the Labour Government, and out of that investment programme Yorkshire and Humberside are faring well. Work is going ahead on the major Anchor scheme at Scunthorpe, costing some £200 million. It is a massive

scheme which allows both for replacement and for expansion of steel making and rolling facilities, and when it comes on stream it will form the third major BSC development and be the largest single scheme so far undertaken.
In coal mining, the fall in manpower—

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: What about Sheffield and Rotherham?

Mr. Chataway: Sheffield and Rotherham—

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Chtaway: Very well.

Mr. Griffiths: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is dismissing the contribution made by Sheffield. We all know about Anchor. Will he tell us how much is spent in Sheffield and Rotherham and how much will be spent in that area and on the Special Steels Division?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman must not take the line that because I do not mention something I am dismissing it. I have already said that I know that a large number of hon. Members want to speak in the debate. If I proceed on the assumption that I am dismissing something if I do not mention it, a lot of hon. Members will not get into the debate. The hon. Gentleman asks about Sheffield and Rotherham. Substantial investment in a variety of schemes has been made in the Rotherham works and following completion of the agreement with Firth Brown the BSC is now considering the best development for stainless steel investment in Sheffield, and substantial expenditure is likely in that important field.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister has mentioned a number of interesting schemes which are under way. It seems to me that the principal scheme under way in Rotherham is the transfer of two arc furnaces from one side of Rotherham to the other, but this creates no extra jobs. We want a great deal more than that.

Mr. Chataway: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a rationalisation has been


agreed between the British Steel Corporation and the Government to tidy up the edge between the areas of responsibility of the BSC and private enterprise. I point simply to the enormous increase in investment in steel and to the fact that within the Yorkshire and Humberside areas a great deal is going on.
The fall in manpower in coal mining in the last decade has been considerable. It was 42 per cent. between 1962 and 1972. Nobody would under-estimate the difficulties that causes to the region and the amount of hardship it causes to individuals. The Yorkshire coalfield is one of the most efficient of the National Coal Board's areas of operation. In determining with the board the future levels of output the Government will, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, have regional considerations much in mind, although it has to be said that the level of the recent pay settlement cannot in the longer term make it easier to safeguard employment.
The Yorkshire coalfields are, therefore, an area into which it is important to attract new industry The area undoubtedly has special problems, and we shall have those much to the fore in our administration of selective assistance. It has the advantage of a strategic location in relation to the motorway box. I am hopeful, therefore, that, among others, it may be possible to attract into the area firms concerned with the distribution of heavy goods. The fact that Lyons has decided to locate in Barnsley a factory which will distribute confectionery to the whole of the United Kingdom is one indication of the advantages of the area. That is a big project, costing about £15 million and providing 2,000 jobs. Ft is, I know, welcome to the area, and it goes there because of the almost unique communications advantages. We are constructing advance factories in the Yorkshire coalfields district, and I assure the House that much of the effort of our regional office will be directed towards the problems of that area.
The other industry which has shed a lot of labour in the past decade is the wool textile industry. I am advised that in the last 12 months there have been clear signs of a turnround. There have been substantial productivity increases over recent years and most of the industry is now in a highly competitive position.

The industry is generally optimistic about entry into the EEC, and all the indications are of a period of stability in employment.
In discussing these three industries it would be wrong to overlook the fact that the region has a broad industrial base There is a wide range of industries engineering—glass manufacture, dyeing and food processing. There is, therefore, a good base on which to build.
There are considerable opportunities for expansion in the tourism and leisure-time industry. The region has a great number of tourist attractions—the Cities of York and Harrogate, the coastline, the Yorkshire Dales and Wolds. In the Yorkshire Tourist Board and the East Midlands Tourist Board we have two active organisations, both receiving help from the English Tourist Board. Considerable sums are being paid out under the hotels development incentive scheme, and we shall keep under review the use made of our powers under the Development of Tourism Act.
I argued a moment ago that the problems of the region, particularly those concerning the reduced demand for labour in coal, steel and textiles, pre-date the present Government by many years. In any serious discussion of the region's problems we must recognise that the economic policies of the previous Administration have had perhaps the largest influence of all upon the trends of employment in the past couple of years I readily concede that Government policies of assistance to the region have been carried on by successive Governments and that there are real achievements from which the region can now benefit. Added to its central location is what is becoming an excellent system of communications. Infrastructure over a number of years has been greatly improved.
During the past two years the Government have acted with vigour on programmes further to strengthen the region and to overcome its long-term difficulties My hon. Friend the Under-Secetary of State for the Environment will have more to say about this in replying to the debate
In two years the Government have done more for road-building in Yorkshire and Humberside than has ever been done before. They have done more to clear


away the dereliction of the past than ever before and more to modernise houses. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Barnsley seemed to imply that the measures for clearing derelict land were part of the recently-announced package. I must tell him that with the 75 per cent. grants that are available throughout the region a massive programme is in hand, and in the past three years the Department of the Environment has approved projects to a value of £1·8 million covering 1,250 acres of derelict land. That is a big scheme, and my hon. Friend will want to say more about Operation Eyesore.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he places this as the first priority. It is not only an enviromental but an industrial matter. If there is to be the expansion in the area which is vitally important, these measures to improve the environment must go forward and have real steam behind them.
From the right hon. Gentleman's speech one would hardly have guessed at the expenditure on roads. Work in progress in the area totals £80 million, against £59 million for the last year of the previous Administration. There is £516 million worth of road work in the pipeline, compared with £377 million two years ago. These are very big schemes.
My hon. Friend will want to deal in detail with some of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman about opening up Humberside. With the motorway to Humberside, the Government are determined that the opening-up of the Hull port shall be progressed as fast as possible.
From what the right hon. Gentleman said about the 75 per cent. improvement grants, one might have thought that they were introduced only the other day. They were introduced in June, 1971, for the intermediate areas. Now, with the extension of the intermediate areas, those 75 per cent. improvement grants up to an increased limit of £1,500 are available throughout the area. That gives a tremendous opportunity for the modernisation of old homes. All these measures add up to a considerable increase in the level of Government assistance over the past two years.
On the industry front the thoroughgoing review of regional policy undertaken by the Government has resulted in the measures announced in the March White Paper. Those measures give to the region many of the advantages for which it has been asking successive Governments for many years. The package has been widely welcomed by all those concerned with the development of the region. They add up to the most powerful and comprehensive set of measures yet devised to speed the region's development.
A number of important recommendations by the Hunt Committee which were rejected by the Labour Administration have now been acted upon. As the Hunt Committee recommended, there are now to be building grants throughout the region. They will not be confined only to projects which create new employment but will be available for modernisation; they will not discriminate against industry already established within the region; and the lower limit above which industrial development certificates are required has been raised even beyond the Hunt proposals. All these are major recommendations which were refused by the previous Administration but which have now been implemented by the present Government.
In the past two months I had the opportunity to discuss the region's problems with a number of trade unionists, industrialists and administrators. I must apologise to the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. Harold Walker) that, due to an error for which I take responsibility, a letter from him to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not resulted in a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman and a number of his hon. Friends. However, in the discussions I have had, and in the course of visits to the region, I have been struck by the widespread recognition which now exists that Government measures give the region very considerable opportunities. It is most important that we should devolve to the maximum extent responsibility to the region for the administration of these new measures, and in particular for the administration of selective assistance.
There is within the region a high proportion of industry either locally-owned


or locally-controlled; there is a pool of local management talent and undoubtedly it is a region which is anxious to stand on its own feet. I believe that we shall achieve far greater results if we give to the new regional set-up—to the regional office, the regional industrial director and the regional industrial development board—a wide measure of discretion in the administration of selective assistance so that they can act quickly and can take decisions in the region. It is my intention that a high proportion of cases should be dealt with in the region itself.
The new regional development grants, which are at a rate of 20 per cent. payable for capital expenditure on new building and additions to existing buildings for qualifying activities, will be a powerful incentive to modernisation of old buildings.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley laid a great deal of emphasis on mobile industry, but mobile industry can make only a relatively small contribution to the problems of any region. A larger part of the answer for Yorkshire and Humberside will come from the expansion and modernisation of the industry that is already there.
I am anxious that selective assistance should be available to service industries as well as to manufacturing. Successive Governments have come to the conclusion that the fact that grants are not given to all service industries does not make sense because the majority of service industries are dependent on the level of the economy in their area. No amount of assistance will make a shop open if there are no customers. There are some mobile service industries. We have in selective assistance a flexible tool with which we should be able to give assistance in those cases which are of real importance to the development of a region or of an area with particular difficulties.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should do all we can to attract office jobs. I was interested in what he said about Yorkshire Television and he will be glad to know that commercial radio is on the way and may be able to duplicate some of these advantages. I feel that these new measures can have a considerable effect on regeneration within the region, but they will depend for

their success on the impact of national economic policy.
It is a truism to say that for any region national economy policy is even more important than any regional measures. The economic policies which we have pursued have involved reducing taxation, increasing incentives to invest for profitable undertakings, removing restraints from small businesses, removing discrimination against service industries, increasing the level of demand, seeking to soften the social impact of economic change and directing the whole thrust of economic and industrial policy towards long-term growth. All these are policies which will have an increasing effect as time goes on.
I appreciate that some Labour Members will argue that these policies are ill-conceived or that the stimulus given to the economy is either too little or too large. It is true that it has taken longer and has required greater effort than almost anybody foresaw to pull the economy out of the deepening depression left by the Labour Administration. But nobody with a serious interest in the problems of Yorkshire and Humberside will seek to argue that the increase in the region's unemployment over recent years has nothing to do with the economic policy pursued up to June, 1970, or will overlook the gathering impact of unprecedented stimulus given to the economy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in successive Budgets.

Mr. John Mendelson: Before the right hon. Gentleman reaches those larger controversies, I should like to ask him specifically what he means by saying that, although mobile industries are important, a larger part of new employment in the region will have to come from the modernisation of existing industry. Is he ignoring the fact that as our important industries, such as steel and coal, become more and more efficient by the application of modern technology, some of our men will lose their jobs? Will he not say a great deal more about Government policy in attracting new industries, and certainly lighter industries, into the area? So far he has said nothing at all to encourage us in that direction

Mr. Chataway: I am sorry if what I said was not sufficiently clear. My point is that the number of industries which are


mobile is relatively limited. I have been given an estimate that in an average year the number of jobs in the whole country which may flow from industries which are mobile is of the order of 30,000. It is fairly clear that to a region such as Yorkshire and Humberside—which does not have anything like the unemployment problems of some of the development areas and does not have as large grants—incoming industry is only part of the solution. It is an important contribution but it is relatively small.
A larger part of the answer will lie in the expansion of industries which are already there. I detailed a number of industries which are at present in the region; I said that there was an encouragingly wide variety of industry within the region. We must look primarily to the expansion of those activities and the expansion of the service industries to provide new jobs. Modernisation in the coal and steel industries, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), as well as in a number of other industries will mean either that there are fewer jobs in those industries or that, even with expansion, there will not be many more jobs. We must look primarily to concerns within the region and to the possibility of expanding them.

Mr. A. E. P Duffy: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is of the utmost importance. The right hon. Gentleman has stressed the importance of the findings of the Hunt Committee but he did not mention the dissenting note by Professor Brown who pointed out, in support of what my hon. Friend has just said, that existing industries cannot generate the new growth and job opportunities which the region will require.

Mr. Chataway: I must not be drawn at too much length on this matter, but it is impossible to conclude from the figures that a major part—certainly not the major part—of the answer to any region, perhaps least of all Yorkshire and Humberside, can lie in incoming industry. I have said that it is important, and in a number of areas it will be very important. In the South Yorkshire coalfield, for example, there will be a need for special efforts.
However, I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that the wide consultations that we have had in preparation for the new measures have shown within the regions a very large measure of support for the view taken by the Hunt Committee. It is really important to give much more assistance than ever before to concerns within the regions. Why should they not be able to expand? There are large numbers of them which are extremely successful, and perhaps one of the largest continuing complaints about the kinds of assistance that Yorkshire and Humberside and other regions have received has been that they have discriminated against the firms already in an area.

Mr. Wilkinson: Did not Professor Brown also say in his minority report that a new town or the kind of growth centre advocated by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) would not make sense for Yorkshire? Much of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was trying to amplify that point. In other words, should not we try to revivify existing centres of population and economic activity, as Her Majesty's Government are doing?

Mr. Chataway: I am afraid I cannot deal with that point without notice. However, if my hon. Friend says it, I am sure it is right.
I wish to make two further points. It would be unrealistic to ignore in any debate such as this the drastic effects that cost inflation can have on employment prospects in any region. It must be said flatly that every excessive wage settlement will damage employment prospects. To modify a phrase of the Leader of the Opposition, it is incontestable that one man's wage increase is another man's redundancy notice. In the past year, thanks largely to the CBI initiative, the national rate of increase in the retail price index has been pulled back from 11 per cent. to 6 per cent. But if unemployment figures in the regions are to improve rapidly—in Yorkshire and Humberside no less than elsewhere—clearly that progress must be maintained. I recognise that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side are as aware of this as anyone, but those who back every inflationary wage demand deal a deadly blow to areas of high unemployment


because it is in those areas that job prospects are hardest hit by rising costs

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us the gross annual earnings of manual workers and non-manual workers in Yorkshire and North Humberside and compare them with the United Kingdom as a whole? Then he can give us this spiel.

Mr. Chataway: If the hon. Gentleman wants the figures, I will secure them for him. My point is that inflationary increases of this kind militate not against the areas of prosperity primarily but against those areas where the employment situation is already weak. That is true of settlements right across the board nationally
The right hon. Member for Barnsley said a great deal about one report of the Yorkshire and Humberside Council I was surprised that he did not refer to the most recent report of a working party of that council. It was a report on the implications of membership of the Common Market. The working party, set up last year by the council, was asked to take stock of the implications for the region of British entry into the Common Market. The TUC and the CBI were represented on the working party. By any standard, its report published last month is a careful, thorough, realistic piece of work

Mr. McNamara: Rubbish.

Mr. Chataway: The regional TUC represented on the working party has, so far as I know, entered no dissident note about its findings
Those findings recognise that some industries may face increased competition, that entry into Europe will not be a magic wand, and that it will be essential to adapt to changing circumstances. But the working party sees no reason why Government measures to assist Yorkshire and Humberside should be incompatible with membership. It sees the advantages to the region of Britain's ability within the Community to help in developing the Community's regional policies. It finds that coal, steel, some parts of the chemical and engineering industries, food, confectionery and many sections of the wool textile and carpet industries expect to benefit from membership. It recog-

nises the great communications advantages which the region will enjoy within the Common Market. What will be opened up is a new trade axis to Europe across the country from Liverpool to Humberside through the heart of the region.
The working party's conclusion is as follows:
Provided we can make full use of the opportunities of a much larger home market and use our regional resources to the full, we are confident that entering the Common Market can benefit the people of Yorkshire and Humberside

Mr. Patrick Wall: While I appreciate the advantages of joining the EEC, does not my right hon. Friend agree that they can be made use of only if present conditions in the Port of Hull are improved? At the moment they are a disgrace.

Mr. Chataway: I agree that there are important developments to take place there. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will be saying more about communications developments.
The Motion urges the Government to take action in helping to foster greater faith in a more prosperous future for the people of the region. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite wanted to help in fostering that faith, I believe that they could do a great deal by dropping their increasingly unrealistic posturings over the Common Market. There is widespread recognition that this region stands to gain enormously from membership.
As the right hon. Member for Barnsley said, we are not dealing with a depressed area. Many of the regions and industries have been under-capitalised, and these new measures will provide a shot in the arm for them. But the region as a whole has welcomed a new package of assistance and is, I believe, looking to the future with confidence

5.27 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I shall explain to the Minister for Industrial Development why we have not drawn attention to the last report of the economic planning council about the implications of membership of the EEC. Our reason is that the report has come in for a great deal of criticism in the area and, until we have made a further


investigation of the views put forward in the report, we are not sure about their soundness. In any case, the European Communities Bill is being debated. Some of us think that probably we have covered all the issues that may be raised. However, the Minister has now put forward some more which give us ammunition for further debate on that Bill. In any event, I cannot accept the working party's report without a great deal more investigation.
I am sorry that the Minister brought into his rather lengthy remarks the proposition that part of the trouble from which the Yorkshire and Humberside area is suffering is caused by wage inflation. There might perhaps have been more substance in that remark if it had been applied to some other areas of the country. One of the problems that we face in this region is that wages on the whole, particularly in some of the older industries where craftsmen are exploited, usually by inefficient management, are far too low. I for one shall not stop advocating a decent wage for craftsmen in the Sheffield area so that their take-home pay is considerably more than £20 a week. At the moment it is considerably less in far too many of the firms in the area, and that situation is indefensible.
I do not know to whom the Minister has been speaking if he thinks there is a general impression in the area that the region was depressed economically in the spring of 1970—the heritage left by the Labour Government, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—and now everybody is facing the future with a great deal more optimism. Industrialists and trade unionists to whom I speak in the Yorkshire and Humberside region do not share the Minister's optimism. In fact, they are becoming increasingly pessimistic. Perhaps there is a Freudian slip in the Amendment which shows that the Government are not too happy about the situation either because, speaking about the need to obtain a sustained growth rate in the economy, it refers to the Government's "measure"—just one measure, and I am waiting to hear about it.
There are three main reasons for the high rate of unemployment in parts of the region. The Minister himself rightly

said at the end of his speech that none of the problems in the area, such as that of providing job opportunities, will be solved until there is a higher and sustained rate of growth in the economy. I do not see that coming about as a result of any of the measures referred to by the Minister today.
It is all very well for the Minister to talk about the recommendations of the Hunt Committee. If he stays in his present job for any length of time, which I hope he will not—I do not mean him personally; I mean the Government—he will find that the Hunt proposals are having very little effect in providing more jobs in the region. That was, of course, no reason for turning down the building grant. We accepted most of the other proposals but, as events have shown, they have had very little effect on employment in the region. The reason is that unless there is national growth these measures do not make a great deal of difference.
Nor will anything be done on the second cause, on how to find new jobs to replace those hitherto provided by older industries which are now declining. The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House when he refers to investment in steel providing employment in the region. Admittedly the Anchor scheme will go ahead, but far fewer steel workers will be employed in Scunthorpe at the end of the day and the investment and technological changes in steel in the Sheffield and Rotherham areas will lead to the loss of at least 5,000 jobs. I agree that we must have a modern steel industry and that there must be this investment, but it will not provide work for anybody. This is the third cause of unemployment. It will, in fact, mean people being put out of work.
In view of the time and the fact that we lost an hour of our debate to begin with, I shall be brief and concentrate on only one issue.
The situation may be improved if there is sustained growth in the economy generally, and it may be that the Industry Bill will help. I want to be as generous as I can, but the fact is that that Bill and the changes in Government policy have delayed expansion and it will be several years before the full effects of that Bill are felt. This delay is the result of the Government's doctrinaire approach.
Even if the Industry Bill does help, I do not think it will do more than take up the slack in the present level of unemployment. I still think that in the worst hit areas of the region there will be considerable unemployment unless we concentrate on plans for those areas. Most of the worst hit areas are derelict but they are rich in resources which are now considered to be important because of our rapidly growing interest in environmental problems.
There are colliery spoilheaps in abundance which are full of shale, chemicals and other useful materials. Obsolete steelworks are not being dismantled in a way which enables us to make full use of the scrap materials there. Most of the dismantling is done hurriedly, as I am sure some of my hon. Friends could explain to the House. I am convinced that miles of copper cable have been left in some of the abandoned collieries. Because of price and other factors, firms given the job of extracting materials from abandoned collieries have never taken out of them all the useful materials which they could have removed. Waste dumps in these areas are full of useful scrap steel, copper, zinc, aluminium and so on, and we are adding to this useless dumping every day. Recoverable materials are there but we are doing nothing about them. All that we are doing is fouling the environment and adding to the pollution.
The Secretary of State for the Environment—I am glad that his Under-Secretary of State is to tell us something about what that Department is doing—made brave speeches in Stockholm about the need for anti-pollution measures, cleaning up derelict areas, rivers and so on. He now has an opportunity for some realistic action because, if we are to recover and recycle waste materials on a big scale—and that is surely what is needed—we must provide throughout the region, and particularly in the worst-hit areas, more large-scale sophisticated processing plant in order to extract, process and make use of these raw materials.
The Government should begin by placing the orders now for the plant and equipment that will be required. Some years ago I put forward a scheme which if accepted would have meant that wherever there was a colliery closure there would be set up a committee of the older

workers—those who would probably not have a chance of getting another job—with the redundant mine manager and mine surveyor whose job it would be to find out just what materials could be extracted from that mine on a profitable basis. Such a committee would need a little expert help, and the machinery to carry out the job could be loaned for the purpose. By doing that the Government would save money by not having to pay unemployments benefits. If the cleaning up job were done properly it would result in a cleaner countryside or mining area, and in addition it would provide a profit from the re-use of the raw materials.
The Government are to pay 75 per cent. or 85 per cent. of the cost, but there is a problem in that the local authorities which are being asked to provide the additional money are those which are worst hit. They can least afford to pay part of the cost of cleaning up the area. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will enlarge on this problem.
The Government should get busy on this kind of proposition without delay. Processing plants for this job have been designed, and we therefore do not need to put designers to work for that purpose. We know, too, that manufacturers are willing to produce this plant and equipment. This view will no doubt be supported by the hon. Members for Sheffield. Heeley (Mr. Spence) and Hallam (Mr J. H. Osborn). A plant-making firm in Sheffield, for example, which is in the doldrums is crying out for orders for plant and machinery of this description Such firms could get their works going to produce the necessary plant and equipment and as part of the cost of cleaning up the area would come from the Government the initial cost of the machinery could be met by the Treasury. If it is done on a big scale and in the profitable way that I have suggested, whatever cost the Government may face to begin with, it will turn out to be profitable even to the Government in the long run, as the loans for buying the equipment are paid back.
But what is needed, over and above any measure that the Government may bring forward, is a pump-priming operation of this kind. It would not only help to do the cleaning-up job and provide employment: it would also stimulate the economy and help with a good social


purpose at the same time. So I hope that the Under-Secretary will say that the Department of the Environment will take up this proposition with the enthusiasm that I believe it deserves.

5.41 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan: I should like first to deal very shortly with a constituency point. The final decisions on local government boundaries are not all-important to the social and economic life of my area but they are very important. As an East Riding Member of Parliament I am profoundly dissatisfied with the Government's proposals for our area. Most of my constituents have a country background; they have almost nothing in common with industrial Hull and absolutely nothing in common with Lincolnshire. The only reason why I do not develop that view, no doubt to the relief of other hon. Members, is that I shall be moving an Amendment on this subject when the Local Government Bill is next before the House.
We welcome this debate and the Opposition's initiative, but it has been spoiled by the fact that the Opposition have got stuck under a permanent three-line Whip. The most uncontroversial subjects have to be made controversial. That is what spoiled a very good speech by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). We had an example of this only a fortnight ago when we were asked to vote on the consultative document on training, on which we had asked for the views of the Opposition before coming to decisions. That had to be a three-line Whip. Once again, I cannot imagine why this present subject, of immense importance to everyone here, should be controversial.
Do the Opposition find it deplorable that the present Government have done more for Yorkshire and Humberside than any previous Government? Do they not deplore the fact that the Labour Government set up the Hunt Report but did very little to follow its recommendations? Our proposals are largely in line with the Hunt Report. Is that something that the Opposition want to vote against?
I am of course in favour of a continuing appraisal because our problems are continually changing, but we could not

have a bigger mass of material to go on. Never has an area been more appraised, surveyed, studied and researched. We have an excellent economic planning council, manned by notable and prominent Yorkshire citizens. It has brought out a series of reports which could not have given us more knowledge and information. In addition, we have the massive feasibility study which I found a good deal more theoretical and less down-to-earth than the council's work. We had the Hunt Report, a large slice of which was devoted to Yorkshire and Humberside; we have the Yorkshire universities producing the Yorkshire Bulletin and the West Riding's plan for growth. We could not have more information. The time has come to take a rest from reappraising and to get down to some action. That is what the Government's White Paper proposes.
No doubt all of us are experts on some part of the great County of Yorkshire. I should like to dwell on two areas of which I have some practical knowledge—Humberside, my constituency lies beside the Humber, and the textile West Riding, where I have spent most of my industrial life.
The present problems of Humberside lie very largely in unemployment. Coming from the Department that I recently left, I was preoccupied with this subject. I would stress to Hull Members that I am conscious of the immediate problem that they have before them. Unemployment has been too big for too long. But in the long term, it is safe to say that Humberside could not be more promising. The opportunities are there. If Yorkshiremen do not take those opportunities, someone else will.
Where else in Europe is there a largely undeveloped deep-water estuary with four established ports—facing the expanding ports of Europe—with land and labour to spare, with a rich agricultural hinterland and regional development grants? All this and the Common Market too. Of course, most of this could have been said to be true 10 years ago. Hull seems always to have had a future. But I believe that that future is about to arrive—in the next three years or so.
The new accelerator must surely be the new communications—the bridge which will be the largest single-span


bridge in the world, and the new motorways. People away from the area do not realise the extraordinary fact that Hull has sustained its position as the third port in England upon the most antediluvian communications possible. A large proportion of what goes out of the port has to cross the river somewhere.
The first crossing is Boothferry Bridge, which is ancient enough, but the next crossing is Selby Bridge, the old toll bridge. Everybody in the area will be interested to know what will happen to that toll bridge when the M62 goes over on its new bridge. Successive Governments, ever since 1792 when these tolls were made tax-free, have been too poor to buy the bridge. I hope that the reduced traffic will allow the Government to get rid of those tolls. The existing roads are not wide enough. The huge container lorries rush through villages like Newport and Gilberdyke to the great danger of the inhabitants.
In contrast the new arrangements seem a little short of superb. I do not see how there could be better communications, with the motorway connection right across to Liverpool and connecting with a whole motorway network. Not only does this bring great hopes for Hull and the big towns but smaller towns like Howden and Market Weighton, which have been static economically for years, will all thrive on this new situation.
In contrast to the situation of Humber-side, the West Riding—the textile West Riding—has very different problems, which the right hon. Member for Barnsley covered pretty well. The greatest problem is unemployment. If one tries to find a hopeful factor in a difficult situation, it may be the very diversity of industry in the West Riding. Few people realise what adiversity there is there, especially as so many of the mills, which look like cotton mills or woollen mills, are now producing other things. We have a great diversity. In that situation, a bigger activity in the national economy will be widely felt in the West Riding. I have faith that the steps that are being taken are already having effect. A month ago we got better unemployment figures. One hopes that this is the turn of the tide. I have faith that the activity has started and that unemployment is declining.
But in this area, even if unemployment is reduced to a tolerable level—whatever that it—we still have very big problems which have not been faced nationally until the arrival of the Hunt Report. These are caused by the slow, steady but definite industrial decline. The Hunt Report and the economic planning committee have highlighted this phenomenon. Without wishing to be controversial, I should have thought that the present Government are the first to have taken steps to try to put this right. On the whole, previous Governments have been over-preoccupied with the development areas, which is understandable, and with unemployment alone. But the secondary problem of slow decline is extremely serious.
I give the House a personal experience of how this happens. As the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) knows, I was chairman of a clothing firm in Hebden Bridge, right in the heart of that area. Some years ago we wanted to expand. We could not expand in Hebden Bridge because we were short of labour. Therefore, we expanded in the area of Dearne Valley. Now, several hundred people work for the firm in Dearne Valley, and no one has lost a job in Hebden Bridge. On the face of it, that looks all right. But the effect of that sort of operation and experience multiplied a number of times is what is faithfully recorded in the report of the planning committee; in other words, no new industry has come in. The effect of this for the young, especially the bright young, is very serious. A lack of new and modern growth industry means a shortage of technical and high income jobs. High income potential is a common factor in all growth areas. The tendency to low wages and the lack of opportunities makes for the sort of migration which has been mentioned earlier in the debate.
There is also a legacy of industrial dereliction and a depressing environment. Housing is perhaps cheap, but it is nevertheless below national standards. All these factors go towards encouraging young people to move to other areas, producing the migration mentioned by the right hon. Member for Barnsley.
I do not want to give an all-bleak picture because, while this occurs, there are plenty of highly successful and highly


modern industries. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), there is the Halifax Building Society, the biggest building society in the world. In the Calder Valley there is probably the most modern carpet industry in the world, or at any rate in this country. Nevertheless there is a steady decline. The rate of decline is not dramatic. Probably that is why not much has been done about it. But the rate will accelerate. Action to counter it must be mainly local. However, the debate is for discussing what Governments can do to help
After hearing my right hon. Friend the Minister, we must agree that the Goverenment have made a good start. I do not want to reiterate all the measures spoken about by my right hon. Friend, but I shall mention one or two of them. The extension of intermediate area status over the whole area is important. I do not believe that will attract a lot of new industry, but at least it puts us on a par with our neighbours and helps us to retain what we have. A most important new step is the new grant to already established industries. In the West Riding a large number of small and medium sized firms have the greatest difficulty in moving to other areas or in starting factories in other areas because there are great management problems and so on. But they are much better able to expand where they already operate. That is the area at which we have to look.
The much-quoted Professor Brown said that he thought the Hunt Report over-stressed the importance of infrastructure as an attractor of industry. That may be true, but one cannot under-stress it as a retainer of industry. If we had not got the M62 motorway, which puts us on the map in terms of communications, we should be in a serious position, because all other development areas now have a modern motorway connection.
I doubt that the question of training will feature very much in the debate, but practically the first recommendation of the Hunt Report on human resources was about training. As we know, there is a massive expansion programme for training. I hope and expect that Yorkshire will benefit from it.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a lot of damage was done between 1951 and 1964, when we could not get industrial development certificates and part of our industry started to leave the area? The person who came to my rescue in 1965 was my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). It was between 1951 and 1964 that the real damage was done.

Sir P. Bryan: I cannot vouch for the dates but I agree in general with the hon. Gentleman that all Governments over the years have been over-sticky about industrial development certificates. There were things which had to be looked at very individually, but there has been a tendency for them to be applied in a somewhat general way, to the disadvantage of industry in some areas.
In a debate such as this, when we air the troubles of our area, we do not always do it a good service. It is important to publicise the most recent report about growth industries in the region. It is a very important document because it identifies the growth industries and the potential growth industries. It stresses the existing advantages. It points out its geographical position, in the centre of the country, the area's improving communications network; that access to ports on both east and west coasts, will be of first class standard by the mid-1970s—that is of particular significance for the growth of trade with Europe—the intermediate area status for building and assistance grants; the experienced labour force with a wide variety of skills; the surplus of manpower in the Yorkshire coalfield suitable for training to skilled and semi-skilled status; the development of the region's universities and polytechnics, which has increased the potential flow of scientists; the abundance of developable land, the house prices which are amongst the lowest in the country, the primary resources ready at hand, and so on.
This impressive catalogue means that this is an area into which growth industries can go today and make progress. As the report stresses, action must come locally. But obviously central Government have their part of play. Yorkshire-men are fairly slow to show enthusiasm. But I should have thought that with the sort of measures listed by my right hon.
Friend the Minister and the extra measures in legislation and in the White Paper, Yorkshiremen would at least concede that the Government had done their bit.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: Even at this early stage I am disappointed at the way the debate has progressed, but for a different reason from that expressed by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). It is most unfortunate that the Minister, who I am afraid is not with us at the moment, made so little comment to reassure hon. Members on the Opposition benches and the people of the Yorkshire and Humber-side region.
It is equally unfortunate that the Minister took his time and the time of the House to introduce what could almost have been described as an extension of the Common Market debate. Out of consideration to the many hon. Members on both sides who want to speak in the debate I shall not take him up on the points he raised about entry into the EEC, sorely tempted as I am to do so. I recognise the point he made as valid in the sense that this Government alone cannot be held responsible for the present situation. We would all be prepared to admit that the process of deterioration has occurred over a lengthly period but it is only fair for the Government to accept their share of responsibility for the way that deterioration has accelerated in the last two years. It is this that has concerned hon. Members on the Opposition benches, and it was because of this that we pressed for this debate today.
There have been so many assessments, surveys and reports. But the very good advice contained in those reports is not matched by the action which has been taken. I hope that arising out of the debate, in spite of what the Minister said earlier, we may produce effective action which will help to resolve the problems of the region. The problems are social and environmental, in particular. Unfortunately, time does not permit us to deal with them all specifically in detail. Whatever progress we might wish to make in the social or environmental sphere bears to a large extent, however, on the region's viability. It is understandable, therefore, if we tend to concentrate on the economic aspects.
I speak as a representative of a Leeds division, and I do not regard it as significant in any way that a Sheffield Member should have been called to speak before I was. Leeds is one of the major cities not only of the region but of the country, and Leeds Members are entitled to be concerned not only about the present situation but about the trends for the future. If the trend which has persisted over the last few years continues unabated the city will be in very serious difficulty.
It is very unfortunate that there is not a great deal of statistical data available for the last two years. Even the census which was taken in 1970 is not yet available for analysis and consideration. This is one of the difficulties many of us have experienced in trying to present an up-to-date picture in the debate. We know the sort of problems which face our areas but to provide a comparison with what is happening elsewhere in the country is not easy.
In Leeds and in other parts of the region the diversity of industry has been our protection against economic slump. For many years Leeds was in the happy situation of having an unemployment level of about half the national average. Since 1968 the reverse has been the case. Rarely, if ever, during that period, have we been below that level and usually we are in excess of it. It is clear from Department of Employment figures that since 1967 the level of unemployment in the city has increased two and a half times. Even is the last 12 months, a period for which the Government must accept responsibility to a very large extent, the figure has increased by 23 per cent. That is a fantastic increase which we obviously cannot tolerate.
A cause for even greater concern was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) when he spoke of the employment of disabled people. Leeds is not exceptional in this respect. It is typical of Yorkshire and Humberside and probably of a wider part of the country also. When I speak of the disabled I mean those who are capable of being employed in normal circumstances, and not those who require sheltered workshop accommodation. Unemployment in this category in the last 12 months has increased by 25 per cent. This kind of situation obviously requires drastic action.
The major problem is that throughout the region the large industries are being undermined. In Leeds the biggest employing industry is the clothing industry, and I hope the House will seriously consider the situation which is developing in it. From 1949 to 1965 there was a reduction of 25 per cent. in the numbers employed in the industry, and that reduction has been accentuated certainly during the last two years. There may be many reasons for this but it is important to note the change in Government policy, the way in which the industry has been dealt with and the effect of our international attitude upon it. In 1970 8·2 per cent. of men's and boys' clothing sold in this country was imported. But in 1971 that figure had increased almost 50 per cent. to nearly 12 per cent. The same can be said of shirts, underwear and overalls where imports increased from 16 per cent. to 26 per cent. of the total sold in Britain. The industry in Leeds is facing a very difficult time, and very little is being done by the Government to try to offset those difficulties.
We are not attracting new industries into the region. There may be many reasons for this but I think it is partly because the region itself and the image of the region are not attracting people and investment. There has been a lack of willingness by Governments over a period to allocate the necessary funds to make this possible and to encourage the siting of industry in the area. I think the point was made earlier that the Government are failing to assist the existing industries, because certainly in parts of the West Riding—and Leeds is no exception—many of the industries are archaic. It may be that in the intermediate grants system we are providing assistance for them. But the intermediate grants system is unable to provide the wherewithal to help older-established industries to replace their old plant. Very often people are working in Dickensian conditions with machinery which is appropriate to those conditions. I would like the Government seriously to consider whether they are prepared to extend financial aid and facilities to assisting industries of this sort to replace the necessary parts of their equipment.
Because of the time I had better conclude but I shall remind the House of

something my right hon. Friend said when he spoke of us having to sell the county. I am sure he is right. Financial aid in itself will not be sufficient. We must create a new image of our region. It is unfortunately true that in many areas in this country, particularly the South of England, there is a tendency to regard us still as morons wearing cloth caps and mufflers, keeping a donkey in the bath and spending our leisure time climbing slag heaps. We have a heritage in our county of which we should be proud. The natural beauty and the resources of the county will stand comparison with anywhere in this country, as will its academic and industrial achievements. We have played a vital part in the commerce and life of Britain, and it it important that we should continue to do so.
I finish on a warning note. Any Government, whatever their political complexion, will ignore the problems facing our region, those that exist now and those that are likely to arise in the future, at their peril, because we shall not die peacefully. The health of the nation depends on the health of its economic regions. Therefore, we must make sure that our region is viable. I appeal to all concerned to give serious consideration to that.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. John Spence: It is a pleasure to follow the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds. South-East (Mr. Cohen).
In the interests of constructive debate, I intend to limit what I have to say to a few important points based on the situation as seen from the Sheffield angle and the industrial side of that great city.
But before I come to those detailed points, I should like to refer to the undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development to devolve to the regions responsibility for administration of the selective assistance. That is a major step forward in the new policies. It is very welcome and heartening news, and I sincerely hope he will not be deflected from that purpose by any blandishments from Whitehall.
The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) spoke about the environment. Nowadays the environment is a growth industry. We have a


coal industry in the Sheffield area, the South Yorkshire coalfields, and I believe that concern for the environment has a considerable part to play in the growth of the industry. Perhaps not many people realise that from an atmospheric point of view we in this country are far ahead of our prospective European partners. Sheffield is the cleanest city in Europe—although one always adds, "atmospherically speaking". Its counterparts in Europe are shrouded in fog and smog on occasions when Sheffield, under similar conditions, is not. Therefore, there has grown up the potentiality of an industry based on coal for smokeless fuel for both domestic and industrial use. In view of the possibilities in Europe, it must surely be a major industry, and something that should be very carefully considered.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about extractive plant to deal with spoil heaps. It is a constructive point, and one which should be pursued.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said it was the job of Government to create a climate in which the regions could grow. That is true. I also believe that it is part of the regions' job to take full advantage of the opportunities Government may create. In a nutshell, I believe it is the job of the regions to sell themselves to industry. I also think that the task of selling must be done in two dimensions. First, there is the publicity side, for the presentation of the area. Secondly, there is the factual and technical information necessary to attract new industries.
Unlike my right hon. Friend, I believe the greatest future for the regions lies in attracting new industry from outside, though not in deference to extensions of industry from within. The potential market for new industry for our regions is considerable. After all, we have many benefits to offer the EEC, the United States and Japan. Therefore, a vigorously led local campaign with the object of selling the area, the town, the city, the region is probably the most constructive form of self-help that we can do for ourselves in the regions.
But, unfortunately for many people in local authorities, in industry and in positions of responsibility in the regions—and I am addressing myself mainly to Sheffield now—this involves a big change

of attitude towards industry. I have recently made some independent inquiries which have yielded some very disturbing results, which I believe it will be useful to hon. Members from other regions and those in authority in Sheffield to know. The most frequent complaint which I have heard from industrialists in the course of my inquiries is that the city had the wrong attitude towards industry coming in, and that efforts to bring industry to the city were being needlessly thwarted.
A general statement of that kind led me to seek to particularise, and I was given some concrete reasons for the statement. The first was that Sheffield would not sell the freeholds of industrial sites, that the local authority wished to have too much control through the medium of the lease. This may or may not be a reasonable practice. I am not passing judgment on that, but an inevitable consequence is that it limits the range of industry prepared to come to the city.
The next objection I received was that leases were too restrictive, in the sense that they limited the use of the site to one particular industry, and, therefore, a change of user was not automatic. It was not a general usage for industrial purposes, but a particular usage irrespective of whether the industry was light, medium or heavy. That is a further restriction.
The next objection was that rents charged were, in the words of my informant, "top whack", and there were rent reviews every seven years.
Another objection was that industrial and domestic rates were uncompetitively high, in many instances twice as high as some of Sheffield's competitors.
But the biggest obstacle of all—this was repeated throughout my series of inquiries and frequently emphasised—was that town planning procedures at local authority level were a major obstacle. There were indecisions, delays, postponements, and meticulous and tedious details which had to be settled in advance, to such an extent that the game was not worth the candle. These are important factors. One should know that this is the reaction of the prospective industrialists to the structure of organisation.
It is not my intention to be critical. My intention is to be constructive and to pass information to the House which I have been given and which may be helpful in dealing with industry in future. There is no point in running away from the problems. If constant inquiry is not made on a give-and-take basis between industrialists and the city and the city and industrialists to find out what is needed, a constant two-way traffic of ideas, we shall never improve ourselves and attract the industry which we need.
Another area which was touched upon in my inquiries was how we could get more badly needed service industry in Sheffield. Hon. Members have mentioned in earlier speeches, and it has been represented to me, that it would be advantageous if the local authority had a more direct and better publicised policy of land use planning. The example has been given that it should designate, near the city centre, an area specifically for white-collar jobs, not necessarily in the service industry, which in the classification, though service, would in most instances bring industrial problems. That would mean that one would know in advance that a specific area of the city convenient to the city centre had been designated and that town planning permission would be forthcoming for new and expanding service enterprises. That would be a major step forward.
We have done it in a small way. In Sheffield we have designated a site which we hope and believe will be a solidly-based scheme. I refer to the new headquarters for the South Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council. If this justifiable bid comes off, why not expand it? Why not expand that idea to cover service industry in the area?
My final topic is the small firm. Throughout the whole of the Yorkshire and Humberside region, small firms play a great part—I believe a dynamic part—in the economy of the region. It would be to our advantage to increase the small firms' opportunities and thereby increase the job opportunities which the small firms will in turn create. The Government realise that and also realise the part the small firms play in the economy of the region. The Bolton Report recommendations will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides

and by the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Association.
The small firms are responsible for a high proportion of job opportunities. No opportunity should be lost to encourage the growth of the small firm. I mention in particular the Industrial Liaison Officer Service. It is possible that we may have a small firms' advice bureau, but I hope that the advice bureau will not be in replacement of the Industrial Liaison Officer Service. Sheffield has an energetically run Liaison Officer Service which is of real value and which offers a real service. It is well run and controlled, and is in competent hands. First, we should build on it. Secondly, we should not limit the Industrial Liaison Officer Service to the manufacturing industry. That division is too artificial. It should be extended to include the service industry. This policy relating to the small firms, properly and carefully handled, can be of great benefit to the region.
In conclusion, the Government policies which have been announced by the Minister are on the right lines. My right hon. Friend's policies will obtain, if operated quickly, the desired improvement in the region's prospects.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Torney: First, I shall explain to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Spence), who has now left the Chamber, why this debate is controversial and why it will have a three-line Whip vote. Possibly hon. Members opposite will find my explanation difficult to understand because of their lack of experience of people who work in industry at shop-floor level. The greatest indignity a man can suffer is to find himself unable to earn, by the sweat of his brow, his daily bread for himself and his family. That is one vital point.
The other reason for this controversy and for the three-line Whip vote is something which the Minister in his opening speech seemed to forget. He endeavoured to suggest that the deplorable economic situation in Yorkshire and other parts of the country was in some measure due to the previous Administration. That is what he hinted.
Perhaps the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Sheffield


Heeley, have forgotten that the policy recently being followed by the Government was certainly not the policy they followed when first elected to power. On their election they were telling industry, not only in Yorkshire but in Britain as a whole, that only the strongest could survive, that there was no Government help to be expected. I refer to the "lame duck" policy pursued by the Government, which is now dead.

Mr. Spence: rose—

Mr. Torney: I did not notice the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, who is trying to intervene, being politically in opposition to that policy. However, he now says that the present policy which the Government are following is the right one, although it is completely different from the one which the Government followed when they first came to power.

Mr. Spence: I thank the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) for allowing me to intervene. May I ask him whether he is aware of the statement made by the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1965 when he was speaking about the situation in the regions which the Labour Government inherited—the regions from the previous Conservative Government? He said
were absolutely booming ahead. I am glad to say Scotland, the North-East, the North-West and Wales are all going fine, investment going ahead very fast" 
Are those not the facts?

Mr. Torney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that matter. That brings me to my next point, which was conveniently forgotten by the Minister when he spoke at the beginning of the debate.
Unlike the present Administration, the previous Administration took power at a time when the country had its back economically, to the wall. That situation was the responsibility of past Tory Governments. The last Labour Government had to deal with a difficult economic situation in Yorkshire and other parts of the country at a time when they were struggling economically to survive, due to the adverse balance of payments situation which they inherited. The Labour Government passed on to the present Government a healthy balance of payments situation. At the beginning of the present

Government's administration, having inherited that situation, they should have been able to help such regions as Yorkshire. What did we see? We saw the sweeping away of regional policies, which they have now had to readopt.
The City of Bradford has a very serious unemployment situation. There has been brief reference this afternoon to the wool and textile industry, which is now trying to modernise in line with the Atkins Report. I am bold enough to say that the bosses of that industry could hardly be termed supporters of the Labour Party. I am certain that among the bosses of the textile industry we should find mainly supporters of the Tory Party and, therefore, of this Government. Yet over the years that industry, which is one of Britain's oldest industries, has failed to modernise. Now, in order to bring it up to an efficient state so that it is capable of competing with other nations, it has to be compressed. What do we find? We find tremendous redundancies, mill closures, and so on.
In common with other industries, mergers take place in the wool and textile industry. What happens when mergers take place? I realise that in many instances it means some efficiency, but it also means a considerable increase in the dividends which go into the bosses' pockets. In addition, it means that many thousands of my fellow workers are thrown on to the scrap heap of industry with little hope of finding jobs.

Mr. Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. Torney: I will not give way again, because many of my hon. Friends are waiting to speak.
The situation in the wool and textile industry in Bradford is deplorable. There is 6·9 per cent. unemployment among men in that industry. Bradford's problem is male unemployment. That is an important aspect of employment, or unemployment, because the man is the breadwinner. Therefore, it is important to take action which will improve the situation.
When the Labour Government left office there was only 4 per cent. unemployment. Now it is nearly 7 per cent. In Bradford as a whole, not just in the wool and textile industry, there is 6 per cent. male unemployment. In 1970 the figure was 3·4 per cent. That is a large


percentage increase in male unemployment in Bradford, particularly in the wool textile industry.
The wool textile industry is contracting and will contract even more. It is no use talking about what we can do to improve employment in that industry as such. We must talk in terms of introducing new industry into Bradford and other parts of Yorkshire.
What kind of success are we having in that direction? My hon. Friends are pointing to the time, but I must make this important point. There is great fear in the hearts of people in Bradford. The other fall-back industry which used to exist when textiles were in decline was engineering. One large employer of labour in the engineering industry in Bradford is English Electric or GEC—another great merger. This is another industry the bosses of which could hardly be termed Socialists. This large factory employs a great number of people, particularly men. The workers are very worried. Over the weekend shop stewards from the factory made representations imploring me to raise this very point.
The works side of this factory has been on a three- or four-day week for a considerable time. Only last week did it go back to a five-day week. The workers are very pleased about that, but the shop stewards put it to me in this way: "Tom, we do not know how long this situation will last. From the activities of, and the discussions we have had with, the management, we expect to go back on short time in the near future. "I ask the Government to give some guarantee to these workers in Bradford. In a recent article The Guardiansaid that this was the best managed company in Britain and that the profits expected this year were in the region of £89 million. Let some of that profit be expended on ensuring that more workers are kept in employment.
I was also approached by the staff side of this firm over the weekend. I was told that redundancies are continuing and that the management refuses to discuss better arrangements for redundancies with representatives of the staff. If the Government are determined to show concern for Yorkshire, this is the situation with which they should be dealing. If the Minister for Industrial Development is to be the co-ordinator for better industry

and employment situations, he should tell this firm that it is time it discussed redundancies with the workers' representatives and did something to ensure full employment for the workers on the shop floor in an area where there is a tremendously high unemployment rate.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proud foot: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Bradford. South (Mr. Torney)—

Mr. Torney: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's being unable to follow me.

Mr. Proudfoot: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is some connection between a man's politics, if he is the director of a firm, and what he does in the market place.

Mr. Torney: Of course there is.

Mr. Proudfoot: How foolish can the hon. Gentleman be? GEC is in business to make profits. I will tell hon. Gentlemen what is done with profits when they are obtained; they are reinvested to make still more profits. That is something which the Labour Government left firms unable to do. Firms were left with insufficient profits. It is only from profits that this country has been built up. Private enterprise did it before and will do it again. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) has made his speech. He must not make another.

Mr. Proudfoot: I sometimes think that hon. Gentlemen opposite are the begetters of lame ducks. I will explain what I mean.
I was the Member for a constituency which formed part of the North-East. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite come from a successful part of the country—the Yorkshire and Humberside region. This factor of industrial life is new to them.
I have lived in distressed areas and development areas the whole of my life. To come to the constituency which I now represent with virtually full employment was quite an eye opener. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite not to follow the trend to which they are speaking today.


If they do, they will do the whole of Yorkshire the greatest disservice.
I was born in Durham. There has been 50 years of Socialist local government there, 50 years of rending the hair, tearing the sackcloth and rubbing the ashes into themselves. When I went into the forces every man I met thought that I was born among the pit heaps. To illustrate how silly it is to cry "stinking fish" about one's own area, I should point out that when I first went into Wales over the Severn Bridge I was amazed to see that the grass was green because, having been in this House before, I had so often heard Welsh Labour Members decry their own parts of the country. I cannot agree with hon. Members in wanting to do that.
Yorkshire has a great future. Neither the Labour Government nor the Conservative Government have succeeded with a regional development policy. I doubt whether any country has except Russia, where people are sent to Siberia at the point of a bayonet. Here no one even asks that there should be direction of labour.
Millions of pounds have been poured into these areas. When the Labour Government came to power in 1964 the Hailsham Report was being implemented. When the Labour Government left office unemployment in the North-East was higher. There are lessons to be learned. The North-East now has its infrastructure right. I believe that it will be the first of the areas to come right, because of the action of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in taking up the Hailsham Report.
The infrastructure in Yorkshire is now being put right. The North-East, Scotland and Wales all rely on heavy industry, whereas Yorkshire has a multiplicity of industries. I meet people from other parts of the country who think that Brig-house and Spenborough is where all the wool comes from. Those who say that to me in Yorkshire do not know enough about their own county. Thirty per cent. of the 440 factories in my division provide goods or parts or pieces for the motor car industry. The whole thing has been going through a dynamic change. It is mere pretence to say that the whole of this great region will have a miserable future.
It is a vastly improved area, due to the efforts of both parties and to local politicians. The first time I drove through the division, on my way to the Conservative Party conference at Blackpool, I noticed that the grass was black. Today it is green. One is absolutely amazed, going along the unopened part of the M62, to see the changes which have been wrought in this area in the middle of Yorkshire where people thought in terms of industrial bric-a-brac. Spenborough Council has done excellent work in clearing away some of the old industrial rubbish. Brighouse secured grants in order to get rid of old disused factory chimneys.
In the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) I met a man who idolised his "beautiful" chimney; he did not want to get rid of it because it had a crown on top of it. The chimney is probably still there. Money is available to the extent of 75 per cent. of the cost, to get rid of old chimneys. This process is well on the way in Brighouse. The cleaning-up campaign in Yorkshire and Humberside matters.
The Bolton Committee matters, too, in the Yorkshire context. The 440 factories in my constituency are run by enterprising, tough, competitive people who are great characters. The man who started the largest factory in the constituency, the factory which is the largest employer of labour there, is still alive today. The quality of life in this area is very different from that obtaining in areas where there are huge factories employing 10,000people. Here the people know each other and there is little labour trouble. There is much that we have to thank the Government for for encouraging small firms by implementing the Bolton Report.
In his Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it possible for businesses to have 100 per cent. depreciation on equipment—in other words, free depreciation. Hon. Members opposite have made great play of how dynamic nationalised industries are and how terrible it is that fewer people will be employed in coalmining, in the steel industry and on the railways. The great National Plan produced by George Brown boasted how few people would be required in those very industries, and the figures there stated still stand.
Hon. Members sometimes say with great sorrow that 5,000 workers, perhaps, may lose their jobs in a works. Often, strict analysis shows that the figures are not as harsh as they sound, in that many people will be leaving the job and many others retiring in any event.
Yorkshire had the great advantage of being one of the first areas to use natural gas in industry.
I was amazed at the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) being able to avoid making any reference to the Common Market. He and I share a common enthusiasm for that great thing which is to happen on 1st January next. However, I will not seek to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman politically. I see a number of hon. Members opposite who are Common Market enthusiasts. If we from the region are to be totally honest with each other across the Floor of the House, we should all admit that it is right that Britain should go into Europe. The local economic planning committee, having gone into the matter in great detail, has said so. The prospects for most of our industries are excellent.
The Hailsham Plan for the North-East was based virtually on new roads. Yorkshire will soon have a network of modern motorways. Two parts of the M62 are already open. I am sorry that the middle section, part of which is in my constituency, has been delayed. I am also sorry about the upheaval which the building of the motorway causes.
The biggest service area on the motorway is to be smack in the middle of my division. When I was elected for this division, immediately I discovered that the Ross group of companies was to get this service area I took steps to ascertain that it would mean 300 jobs in my constituency. Those jobs will be very welcome. The fact that they are 300 service jobs is even more welcome.
Neither the Labour Government nor the Tory Government succeeded in getting labour-intensive industry to move. In the North-East marvellous roads have been built and there has been some in credible modern industry at a cost of many millions of pounds of public money, but it is capital-intensive, not labour-intensive.
I urge Ministers to press on with road improvement, because that is what will help the region most. We want the M62 to go right to the docks. We want also the "leisure roads" which were to come under the old plan in the days of the Macmillan Government. Let us not give the impression that we are so grim in the West Riding that we never play. We want access to the coasts. I hope that the bypasses for Tadcaster, Malton and York will be pressed ahead with. Tourism is growing in the whole area.
I press that the road from the M62 between Leeds and Bradford to join up with the A1 near Harrogate is accorded high priority, as with the road from Bradford to Skipton. Many hon. Members will doubtless mention the Sheffield motorway. These are the vital matters that Yorkshire needs
I am amazed that hon. Members from the Sheffield area have not mentioned the push to modernise our canals. The Common Market, with its standard barges and its method of popping barges on to larger ships, has, I believe, practical implications for the region. I urge the Government to do all they can to increase the size of our own barges. If we can get the roads and communications we need, I am convinced that we can look after ourselves.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman is apparently sitting down, because I was hoping that he would give the same advice to our unemployed as he offered to the unemployed of the North-East when he addressed the Young Conservatives earlier this year at Fylde. According to the Tees-side Evening Gazette, he suggested that the unemployed of the North-East should set themselves up in business as a cure for unemployment.

Mr. Proudfoot: There was nothing wrong in that remark. The first time I am able to put down a Private Member's Motion in the House, I will talk about Kelso, who, I think, will make Karl Marx look out of date. Kelso is an American who believes that this can be done, that one can give people a second income by making them loans so that they can invest. This has in fact been going on. It has been done here by the Rural Industries Board, and in the


United States the Small Business Administration has been set up to do it. There are certainly possibilities in such a scheme, and if bright young people stay in any of these areas the prospects for that area are certainly brighter.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: There was at least one thing which the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) said with which I agree—that it would be totally wrong to exaggerate the problems with which our area is faced.
It is clear that some of our old major basic industries are contracting, and that is cause for concern. But it is not cause for panic. One of the major industries in my area is the fine worsted industry. I believe that if it carries on with its reorganisation, if it does not scream itself into decline as its sister industry in Lancashire was continually doing, it will have a bright future. But there is one aspect which the Government should watch, and this is the import of yarn. At present a great deal of yarn is coming in very cheaply from Japan, and there is some danger that our own yarn producers will be undercut and put out of business and that we shall be left at the mercy of imported yarn at prices we could not possibly control.
I am concerned about the lack of new industries and worried by the statement of the Minister that he thought that the possibility of getting new jobs from new industry was very slight. I do not believe that. But I do believe that there are some difficulties at present about attracting new industries, especially in the textile areas around Huddersfield and elsewhere. One of these difficulties on the spurs of the Pennines, is finding sites which are both available and level. Another difficulty is the image of Yorkshire as being black and bleak and scarred. That was never true of the greater part of the county, as people in Scandinavia, on the Continent and even in the more backward areas of the South of England are beginning to learn, thanks to the tremendous job which the Yorkshire Travel Association is doing. But it is a fact that in some parts of our area we have this difficulty about sites and about the environment.
These two problems could in part be solved by the same action. We have a

large amount of land under-used. A great deal of it is owned by British Railways, such as old sidings, old railway stations—which are eyesores if I have ever seen one—and disused marshalling yards, all of which could provide perfectly good sites, in some cases for housing and in others for new industry. Yet, because the decisions of British Railways are always taken in London and take a very long time to come by, these sites are being left unused.
Another type of site is being wasted—the pit heaps. They could be used. What is more, the material on them could be used to fill in what is at present derelict land and bring that back into use. Yet one of the most stupid things which both Governments have done is to put rates on these pit heaps when they begin to be worked, with the result that the cost of the materials is beginning to rise.

Miss Joan Hall: What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting for pit heaps is already happening. Many of them are being used for the new M62 and are proving good for the job.

Mr. Mallalieu: Of course the material is being used. It can also be used for new airports. If we have the new airport at Foulness we can use 200 million tons of the stuff, with great benefit to all concerned. But the shortage of land can be dealt with if the railways release their land and if the land which is at present derelict can be brought into use by being filled in.
Another aspect of life in the industrial part of the West Riding is pollution of the air—an aspect of pollution to which Mr. Anthony Howard, the toothless wonder of Great Turnstile, might possibly direct his attention. We have still a lot of dirt in our air, and we shall have domestic dirt pouring out into it until there is enough smokeless fuel to extend the smokeless zones. But there is also industrial pollution. We have in Huddersfield a major chemical works. We want it there, it provides employment for the town, and it is of great benefit to the country as a whole; but it sends out noxious fumes. I was informed the other day that one-third of the capital cost of installing a new plant was directed towards cutting out the fumes, and this cost affects the plant's competitive position. I suggest, therefore, that grants


should be available to firms like ICI which will use the money to stop the pollution which comes from their processes.
I have, then, three questions to put to the Government. First, will they look at the question of yarn imports for the fine textile industry? Secondly, will they reconsider the rating of pit heaps when they are being worked? Thirdly, will they look at the possibility of grants to firms which will use the money to stop pollution from their processes?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Hiley: I was afraid that this debate would become as uninteresting as most other debates, particularly when there are so many hon. Members speaking from a narrow, parochial, constituency angle. When we consider the astronomical sums of money that have passed to Scotland as a result of constituency activity—perpetual grumbling—we ought not, perhaps, to be surprised that we in Yorkshire are tempted to follow their example. They think they can gain something, but I believe that if those who have been relying for so long on Government aid were prepared to stand on their own feet they would now be able to face the competitive world. I hope that this Yorkshire lobby will not be one which is concerned merely with grumbling and grousing, such as we have seen from Scotland and, to a lesser extent, from Wales in the last 10 to 15 years.
Singularly few constructive proposals have been made in the debate, and I have heard every word. I felt that many hon. Members would refer to the uncertainty of the Leeds-Bradford airport. I confess that I approach this problem entirely from a constituency angle. The airport is in my constituency and I feel it is my duty to tell the House that large numbers of my constituents, particularly those who live close to the airport, were complaining very bitterly. They succeeded in persuading the inquiry that the noise was beyond what was reasonable. As one who has a close personal interest as well as a constituency interest, I felt that I ought to abide by the decision of the inquiry, and that is, unfortunately, where matters stand. It is not good enough, and if the Government are not prepared

to take the initiative, if they are not able to satisfy the inquiry or my constituents that an airport can be run without disturbance, they ought to find an airport site elsewhere. We shall never make progress in Yorkshire until we have the advantage of an airport.

Mr. John Mendelson: As long as it is not troubling the hon. Member's constituency.

Mr. Hiley: I emphasise the constituency approach.
I approach the next problem rather differently and this is the principal one. When I first came to this House 10 or 12 years ago there was virtually full employment. There was high demand. The only hope for an industry that wanted to expand was to go elsewhere where it could find labour. This was a personal problem for me because it was part of my job before I came here to do just that. Hon. Members opposite ought to know this because I do not think that any of them have ever faced this as a personal problem. The considerations for deciding where an additional factory is to be established are not the same as those dealt with by various Government incentives. If a firm wishes to move, lock stock and barrel, to another area, the problem is rather different and. I think, easier. Most of the problems, particularly with expansionist firms, arise with geography, water, hereditary skills and many other matters which, in my company's case, ultimately forced us not to go to a development area but instead to go to an area which could provide us with the things necessary for our expansion.
Today there is no full employment, no high demand. In the meantime firms have been concentrating on methods by which they can reduce the demand for labour. Things started going wrong in 1965–66. In the following six years we had a very expensive Government, with high taxation, and now we have unemployment which is too high. Hon. Members seem to think that all that has to be done is to build a factory in a development or intermediate area, fill it with new machinery and then send out circulars saying "We are read to accept orders." It does not work like that, I know. I doubt whether anyone opposite does know from personal experience. Wise


management must hesitate before making extensive investment. There is an old adage "Stick to your bush." It would not be a bad idea if some of us thought about this because even with this retraining there is no doubt that the man or woman who has spent a lifetime doing a certain job is likely to know it better than any new skill, particularly when they may have been reluctant to train for that new job.
The problem in Yorkshire and Humberside is aggravated by pit closures. Here I refer to the constructive proposal made by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). With his great knowledge of the mining industry he said that work should continue in these pits. I had been intending to raise this point, as a result of reading Lord Robens' autobiography, in which he severely criticised the last Administration for closing down the pits too quickly and, I believe he said, too radically. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has no doubt read the book because he is one of the characters in it.
Would it not be wise to employ these men, who are on the spot, in a mine which may not be able to provide the same sort of high wages as they would get in a good modern pit? This is our only source of natural wealth. Why cannot we take it out of the pits and make up the wages in some way, rather than pay it out on the dole? Hon. Members opposite cannot say that this is encouraging low wages because as it is a nationalised industry it merely means that we are trying to put into one pocket what might have been in the other.
There is a great danger in widening the regions. Obviously, there are diminishing advantages in so doing, and at the same time the costs of administration are increased. I refer to this as the theory of the soap box. One Saturday afternoon everyone goes to a football match in the normal way, but one bright fellow decides that the next week he will take a soap box on which to stand. He does so, but ultimately finds that everyone else has taken a soap box.
That is what we have been doing with intermediate and development areas. Everyone is clamouring for the advantages of development area or intermediate area status, and in the end when everyone has a soap box we shall be precisely

where we were, but the State will be suffering huge administrative costs. We have to watch that we are not merely transferring unemployment from one area to another. I hope that the soap box theory helps hon. Members to understand the problem. I do not expect anything useful to come out of this debate.
Yorkshire folks are used to getting on with the job. We do not want to be a nation of form fillers. There has been far too much of form filling, and those who have been most successful at it are those who have known how to fill in the forms, as we were told only a few days ago. If we are looking for a more prosperous future for Yorkshire we can rely mainly on the guts and the grit of Yorkshiremen, and the more the Government stay out of it the better it will be.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: I want to address my remarks to two aspects and in particular the one about the ports and docks industry which is specifically mentioned in the Motion. Before coming to that I would like to make one or two points about the problems which arise particularly in my own constituency in Hull and on Humberside itself. They are economic problems relating directly to the ports. I would also refer to some of the policies pursued by successive Governments. 
Hull's economic problems have been made the more difficult by a certain amount of conflict between various Government policies and also because of a certain amount of uncertainty which has been bred by decisions being made nationally, whether decisions on whether a Humber bridge should be built, decisions about ports policy, roads or whether a Channel Tunnel should be developed in the South-East. All these things have had a major effect on the problems of Humberside, and they have been matters on which there has not been much control which could be exercised by the people locally.
Nevertheless it is an area which, as one would expect, has all the assets of economic advantage, such as an excess of land and labour and, of course, of water, and yet at the same time it has a tremendously high level of unemployment. At the moment unemployment is


more serious on the northern bank of the Humber than it is on the southern side. On the northern side it is at a level of over 10,000 which, in the official figures, comes out at near 4·3 per cent., compared with the United Kingdom figure of 3·8 per cent. One of the difficulties in trying to put this problem across is that in all the arguments about employment and unemployment the figures are all wrapped in percentages which disguise the real nature of the problem of employment.
There has been a great amount of migration from the area, and about that one always hears the arguments about low wages and the non-availability of work. One feels annoyed when one hears people talk, as the Minister was talking earlier, of people leaving the area because of low wage levels, Hull having an average of £3 per week less than the United Kingdom average. The real male unemployment level is about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. There are 17 men fighting for every one job. Vacancies are falling, redundancies are increasing. Something like 2,200 have been made redundant in the last two years in my area, and there alone this week 400 people have been made redundant at BOCM.
Primarily, the management emphasise, it is the essence of the operation to make a profit. That may be the remit to the management, but it is our responsibility to be concerned about unemployment, and if the motive power of profit does not produce the right answer we have to look elsewhere for it.
In Hull, jobs for women are increasing but not jobs for men. Road programmes began to improve not only in the last two years but in the last few years. This has been confirmed now by the project of the Humber Bridge with the road network up to it. That is very important.
I do not have time now to argue the point at length, but it is my opinion that the various policies pursued, whether for intermediate areas or development areas, with the idea that we encourage incentives through money to get industry to move into those areas, have been increasingly failing. There are various reports which show this. I was surprised that the mobile industries to which the Minister referred produce only some

30,000 jobs. That is appalling to Humberside and to the whole Yorkshire area. It confirms to me that mobile industries in the private sector will never be able to produce a sufficient number of jobs to overcome unemployment. The private sector will never be able to do it. Therefore it is up to the public sector and it is to that sector that we shall have to look for expansion.
I know that there are many more things to be said about it, but in the limited time we have now one cannot go into all of them. I do not agree with many of the policies put forward by the various planning boards. They seem to say that we have always to make ourselves more friendly, to go out of our way to encourage industry to come in, to make housing much better so that people coming from the South can expect the same sort of standards when they come up to our area and to make our cultural amenities better, and they say that our wages are too low.
This is a kind of servility and touching of the forelock, and I personally reject it. This sort of servility cannot be reconciled with the important right to work. There is a right to work, and rights have never been gained by getting down on one's knees and grovelling in asking for jobs. We have to fight for them and, quite honestly, it is that spirit which I would support to bring about an improvement in our situation. The private sector has failed and, as I say, it is the public sector to which we must look to improve the situation, be it an expansion of nationalised industries in our area, or the Humber Bridge, with use of United Kingdom labour, or by Hull Corporation developing certain reclamation schemes with 75 per cent. Government grants for the old docks.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that when he talks of the corporation doing the work of reclamation he takes us back to the earlier part of his speech and decision making being donecentrally, and that Hull Corporation has been waiting for a long time for a decision from the Government on its application for a grant to reclaim the old town docks system in our constituencies?

Mr. Prescott: It is of importance to Humberside and we hope that we can get a decision about this. It would create more jobs for us


That brings me to the Humberside port complex. Humberside has a very important ports complex. Grimsby, Immingham, Goole and Hull form a kind of Rotterdam complex. It is a very important docks complex which can contribute to regional development. It represents a capital investment of over £55 million and in the last four or five years £25 million has been invested in communications, roads and waterways. Incidentally, the indecision by the Government in the matter of the waterways industry makes life very uncertain for the future of this industry in the Humberside complex.
What is even more important is to recognise that Government policy towards the ports is creating very real problems. It is posing problems which the ports cannot solve. For example, it requires the ports to make a profit. We have heard a lot about the profit motive lately. The Government require a financial return of from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. on investment. They say there will be no subsidies for the port industry; the ports will be regarded as lame ducks if they do not make a profit. The Government do not seem to have taken into account the Touche Ross accountancy report which showed what the ports' competitors on the Continent have been able to do, where capital charges, rates and so on, are not made a full charge on the ports. If that had been applied to British ports the charges would have been reduced by 50 per cent.
All this presents a real problem of cash flow for our ports in the sense that they are not able to raise money and they have not the assets on which to raise loans. The only way they can raise money for capital is to increase charges, and the charges in Hull alone have been increased by over 50 per cent. A large part of the charges represents interest and in Hull alone represents over £1 million of interest charges. They are inevitable to meet the tremendous amount of capital development. In 1963, 21 per cent. of every £1 earned was a charge to interest in the income for the port. In 1972 this had increased to 42 per cent. It is a tremendous amount of money and causes losses to be made by the port. On balance, interest charges are so great that they force losses, and yet the Government say that the ports must make a profit or

must go out of business, and they are not prepared to assist.
What the Government do not understand is the revolution in shipping whereby the contents of many ships from Rotterham are transhipped into smaller ships in the Humber which go to the smaller ports down the river. There are more than 16 small ports on the Humber which employ unregistered labour and pay about £18 a week basic wage. To unload one ton of grain in Hull cost 60p; to do so in one of the small ports costs 17½p. The charge for a 1,000-ton coaster coming into Hull, irrespective of labour charges, is £345, whereas at a little wharf river charges and berthing are only £50. It is impossible to compete under those conditions.
The trade to Selby has increased considerably, and this is shown by the fact that in 1968 677 ships went into Selby whereas now 1,748 ships go into Selby—an increase of 40 per cent. per annum. According to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), Minister for Transport Industries, the Government's answer is:
The crucial test by which a port's future will be determined is the service it offers to shipowners and users. A shipowner is not nowadays tied to a particular port; he is, like a housewife, choosing the shop which the best value, free to go to the port which suits him best.
The Minister for Transport Industries said that at the annual luncheon of the British Shippers' Council. The Government's policy is to shop around.
The consequence is that the port authorities are forced to look wherever they can to cut their costs. What will happen in Hull is that, because of the traffic which is going down to the small ports, the Albert and William Wright Docks, which specialised in this trade and in which £4 million has been spent, will have to be closed. This will mean redundancy for 300 workers and will affect the ship repairing facilities in which a great deal of investment—over £130,000—has been made by shipbuiding companies employing 200 people, thus causing further redundancies in the port's service facilities.
Action is required now for a decision on a Humber MIDAS scheme. The Government must consider a grant for


the reclamation of the old town dock centre. They must allow the State sector to expand its industrial activities. The port policy should be seen as a public link system and not a competitive system, and the social costs must be taken into account. The small ports should be taken into the port transport definition and registration or forced out of operation.

7.22 p.m.

Sir Donald Kaberry: As the hour is getting on I shall seek briefly to make just four or five points. I disagree with the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley). I thought the debate so far had been constructive. I am sure many hon. Members are seeking to put forward points for the betterment of Yorkshire generally, politics apart.
Apart from a slight physical difficulty I should always be prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in defence of Yorkshire and in claiming as much as possible of anything that is going for nothing—that is, if anything goes for nothing today. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for the way in which he opened the debate. I thought he was about to move the Amendment rather than the Motion. Perhaps he would like to put that right later since I am not sure that the Amendment has not yet been moved. He was generous enough to concede that the unemployment difficulties first arose five years ago during the time of his own Government. The troubles affecting Yorkshire and Humberside today are not all the fault of the Government of the last two years; they had a lot of left-overs to deal with and they are dealing with them.
Speaking as a Member representing one-sixth of the City of Leeds, I can say that the peak period of employment in Leeds was in 1964 when more than 278.000 people were employed in the city. From then on there has been a gradual decline until by 1970 the figure had dropped to below the figure of unemployment in 1950—to 254,000. That represents a bigger drop than in any other comparable city or borough.
That drop was brought about by a combination of circumstances. We were

not in a development area. Labour was being seduced away by promises of employment in development areas. Employers were being asked to go into development areas to reap the benefits which were available to them there. There was the difficulty of getting industrial development certificates. All these difficulties were cumulative and, at the same time, there was a shift in the pattern of employment in the city. What was once preponderantly a manufacturing city became a servicing city. In 1961 the employment in manufacturing industries was 49 per cent.; in 1970 this had dropped to 43 per cent. In the services, employment increased from 44 per cent. in 1961 to 50 per cent. in 1970. The difficulty is to attract new manufacturing industries into a city where there is an apparent decline, where the pattern of employment and people's habits have changed and where the way of life has changed.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on doing what the former Government did not do. The Labour Government appointed the Hunt Committee but did not follow its recommendations. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Barnsley did not pay greater tribute to the Government for making the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside into an intermediate area with all the consequential grants flowing from it.
In Yorkshire or Humberside one had to be careful a year or two ago to squeeze the required extension or new building into an area of 10,000 sq. ft. so as not to have to go through the process of getting an IDC with all the risks attendant on it. Now the maximum is lifted to 15,000 sq. ft. which makes a big difference.
Leeds has been fortunate in having diversification away from clothing, engineering and textiles and we have been able to keep pace with the development. Leeds has set itself out to be a city which offers regional functions and provides commercial, administrative and cultural services for a wide conurbation.
I come now to the development of the whole area. Modern roads are essential The development of the M62 running right across the county is excellent. Anyone who has travelled on it, although it is only partly constructed, must admire the engineering skill and all the work that has gone to create it. This motorway


will open up a great avenue of traffic from Liverpool across to Hull and will link with the M1. There will have to be more grants for roads, and I should like to exercise a Yorkshireman's prerogative by pushing my right hon. Friend, the Minister a little more and asking him to move a little more quickly in many of the road schemes in Yorkshire.
Many Yorkshire folk, especially those from the West Riding, like to go to the North-East coast, and to the Yorkshire coast in particular. Scarborough is a great watering place but it is a difficult place to get to. We have been promised a bypass for York, Malton and Tadcaster, and I should like to ask for the process to be speeded up and for all the objections to be dealt with. [Interruption.] I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) that I should have included Beverley. I hope that the whole road scheme can be speeded up.
On the question of modernisation of buildings, the grants which are now being made available will speed up the reconstruction and redevelopment of industrial premises and I hope that this will lead to some new building. These are expensive matters and are not particularly easy to organise, and many firms have held back because of the expense. However, I know of many firms which are now going ahead in the light of promises of grants.
On the general question of assistance to industry and trade in the area, it must be recognised that these and other matters are very much connected with what happens in the rest of the country. The country's prosperity is Yorkshire's prosperity just as Yorkshire's prosperity is very much bound up with the prosperity of other areas. We must examine the broad picture which involves the budgetary aid which can be given and the lowering of taxation which we have already seen as a result of the Budget.
I hope that there are more aids to come. I hope that greater assistance will be given to the hundreds of small businesses which are spread across the whole of the Yorkshire and Humberside areas. It is the home of the small businessman. The concept of the small business was created in the Pennines and it is from these small units that many larger firms were finally formed. I hope we shall see

greater concessions to small business in the future.
I should like to say a few words about a subject from which I do not shrink, even though it is on the doorstep of my constituency. I refer to the provision of a regional airport for the area. I have within a mile of my constituency boundary the Leeds-Bradford airport. My house used to be in the track of the old runway; fortunately the track has been changed and the airstrip now takes a different angle. I have never objected to the noise which has been created—indeed it is sometimes like music to my ears. It means that people are being employed, that people are going to foreign places. It means that foreign businessmen are bringing business to Yorkshire and that Yorkshire businessmen are going abroad to get business for Yorkshire. These are important matters to me and on those grounds I do not dislike the noise. However, there are about 18,000 people living in houses near to the airport who do not like the noise.
A public inquiry was held under the auspices of the Labour Government, and the inspector made a report as a result of which the present Secretary of State for the Environment held that the runway should not be extended by a distance of 600 yards. From that moment onwards I, like many other hon. Members, have received letters controversial in nature from those who support an extension and from those who are against it. It must be appreciated that the initiative rests not with the Minister but with the local authorities which run and control the airport. It is for them to make up their minds about whether they wish to apply or to reapply for an extension. An eminent firm of consultants examined 40 sites, ended up by rejecting 36 of them and reduced the final number to four. That firm dismissed the Leeds-Bradford airport as ever being capable of becoming a regional airport and came down in favour of a place which some of us had never heard of before.
These facts are now before the Secretary of State. Some of us have pressed—it must be said that we have pressed unsuccessfully—for a long time for a national airports policy, and the British Airports Authority has dodged the issue. The question that must be asked is whether Yorkshire requires a regional


airport. Some Minister must soon make a decision, and having reached a decision we shall require a statement on national policy. Even the strongest advocates of the development of the Leeds-Bradford airport have never asked more than that it should be used as a feeder service, but it cannot be so used unless there is a 600-yard extension of its runways, otherwise modern aircraft will not be able to use it. There are many other difficulties related to a decision on this matter, but these will take a great deal more time to recount.
Having read the last two lines of the Opposition Motion, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey in asking "What kind of people do the Opposition think Yorkshire folk are?" We are not here with our begging bowls. We are not here to beg for mercy or to ask for love and kisses from the Government. We want our fair share of what is going, but once we get it we shall show grim determination in beating the lot of them.

7.39 p.m.

Sir Alfred Broughton: I agree with a good deal of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry). He and I are united in our strong desire to do all we possibly can to assist the prosperity of Yorkshire and to work for the well-being of its people.
Every schoolchild knows that Yorkshire is the largest county in England and has within its boundaries a great variety of trades and industries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) reminded us in an excellent speech that for a long time our county has been renowned for its coal, steel and textile industries. These, together with many other industries of smaller size, have contributed to the wealth of England.
In recent times productivity in the county has undergone considerable changes, the chief of which has been a certain amount of decline in those products for which it has been most renowned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley spoke about pit closures and the rundown of the coal industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) referred to the lower output of steel.

Other hon. Members have dealt with their various constituency problems. I wish to speak about textiles because the manufacture of heavy woollen cloth is, or was, the staple industry of my constituency. Unfortunately, that industry has diminished in size in recent years.
In passing, I ought to point out that the problems affecting my constituency are precisely similar to those of the neighbouring town of Dewsbury, and I appreciate the opportunities that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) and I have of discussing these common problems.
The decline in the heavy woollen textile industry began many years ago. It is due to a number of causes. The first was the arrival of foreign competition Later there was competition from the invention of man-made fibres. More recently, fashion changes have greatly affected the output of the industry, since nowadays so many people prefer to wear clothes of lighter weight. The industry is much reduced in size but it is not dead. That which remains provides useful employment for a good many people and is a valuable asset to the nation.
Although many firms have had to close their doors and insufficient new industries have come into the area, unemployment in my constituency has remained comparatively low. It is considerably higher than it should be, but at present it is a little lower than the national average. The reason for that is that those who become unemployed are prepared to move house or travel to other jobs in nearby cities and towns, such as Leeds, Bradford and Huddersfield. I am very pleased that it is possible for them to find other jobs. Nevertheless, in order to maintain a healthy, thriving community more industries are needed in my area of the West Riding, and it has been very difficult to persuade new firms to come into the area. I am hoping that it will be somewhat easier in the future now that this part of the country has been included in the intermediate area. Previously my constituency and those adjoining it were greatly handicapped by being outside the intermediate area. Now at least we have shed that handicap.
I am appreciative of all that has been done by successive Governments to improve transport in the area. We have seen


the extension of the M1 up to Leeds, and we have the Yorkshire-Lancashire motorway under construction. I join those hon. Members who have urged the completion of the Yorkshire-Lancashire motorway as soon as possible. British Railways provide very good services for passengers and goods. But, as at least two hon. Members have said already, the region seriously lacks an airport capable of being used by large modern aircraft. We have heard a great deal of talk of the wonderful new airport that we are to have somewhere at some time. However, what is needed very quickly, if only as a temporary measure, is an extension of the runway at Yeadon Airport.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) is an excellent constituency Member and he supports those many constituents of his who do not wish to have the runway extended. However, I am not the Member for Pudsey, and I was surprised that the Secretary of State for the Environment would not permit the proposed extension to be under taken. I have little sympathy with the residents near the airport. If the policy were to build a new airport in an area where there were many houses, certainly I should sympathise with the residents there. But when Leeds and Bradford decided to have an airport Yeadon Moor was selected because it was an open space. The people now living there are living in houses which have been built since the construction of the airport. As the airport was there first and as they have come to live there subsequently, they should not be permitted to prevent its extension.
I believe that a serious obstacle in the way of industrial development in my area is the environment. A number of hon. Members have referred to this already. At one time the foothills of the Pennines were amongst the most beautiful parts in Britain. With the coming of the industrial revolution when any man was allowed to put up any building anywhere they were quickly transformed into the most unsightly. Since the war slums have been demolished and new housing estates have been built, but there remains too much dereliction. Nowadays people are not content merely with a place in which to work and a place in which to sleep. They want a pleasant environment that is free from squalor, dereliction and

ugliness. Steps are being taken to improve the environment in the industrial towns, but the change cannot come too quickly.
I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall occupy only a little more time. I conclude by saying a few words about the future. I have mentioned the decline in the old stable industries and I have explained that that has brought about a need for new industries in the area. In the very near future there will be upheavals in local government, and, still more important, the people of the West Riding must adjust to the changes consequent on entry into the Common Market. Yorkshire men and women are industrious, adaptable and self-reliant. They will cope with those changes. Put I hope that this debate will show the Government the need for further measures to assist this important part of the country to overcome its difficulties.

7.29 p.m.

Miss Joan Hall: I am pleased to be called immediately following the speech of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Sir A. Broughton), and I agree with his last comments about the reorganisation of local government, which I believe will make quite a big difference to Yorkshire, especially to the West Riding. However, I am sure that we shall adapt as well in the future as we have in the past by working together.
I feel that a certain amount of gloom has been engendered about the situation in Yorkshire and Humberside. No doubt some of it is justified. However, I feel that, not just in Yorkshire but in the country as a whole, we have a bad tendency always to talk about our failures and where we do not go right and far too little about where we are successful. When one goes overseas it is depressing to hear it said that the vast majority of people in this country are unwashed, on drugs and permanently on strike. Far too often that is the picture painted of the majority of people here, but it is totally false. [Interruption.] The papers overseas refer simply to the people of this country. They do not refer to them as Socialists or Conservatives. My view is that we should talk about our success a lot more. In the West Riding, in particular, and in Yorkshire as a whole there have been a number of success stories under the present Government.
Change has come to our part of the country later and at a slower pace than to some other areas, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. In our part of the world we are a bit canny about change, and we do not want change unless it is for the better. One of our strengths is that we have an identity. I was born in the constituency of Barnsley. The Keighley constituency is about 30 miles away from there, but Keighley people think that Barnsley is on the moon. That sort of thing can be repeated all over Yorkshire. We are friendly, but we do not mix. It is a little like oil and water. In a way that is good, because it means that if people go to an area they feel that they belong and have an identity with it.
Reference has been made to population movements outwards. My experience is that there is a lot of population movement within the area, and this is a good thing. The younger generation are prepared to move home; they are prepared to change their jobs. If they come to an area with which they feel they have an identity and to which they feel they belong they participate in local activities. This enables them to live much happier lives and it leaves them with happier memories than they would have if they lived in an area which is rather nebulous and where it is difficult to tell where one town commences and another ends. Few areas have more identity than those in Yorkshire. This is important, and I hope that it will always be so.
The unemployment figures are far too vague and unscientific. More research and more money should be made available to find out who the unemployed really are. A number of people who are unemployed do not register, and this goes particularly for women. On the question of male unemployment, there is a big difference between the chap who is out of work for a few weeks and the chap who is over 50 and has been declared redundant, who finds it extremely difficult to get another job, particularly if he is in management.
The unemployment figures are far too unscientific, but there is, nevertheless, a lot of genuine unemployment in the West Riding, though it is far less than in some other areas. There are people who

become unemployed simply for the sake of getting money from the State, but, on the other hand, there are those who genuinely want work but find it difficult to obtain.
The employment position in Keighley since the war has been good, but we felt a cold breeze last winter, partly because we are dependent mainly on textiles and engineering. There has not been a great deal of change during the last 20 years, and when it came it came rapidly. Nevertheless, the unemployment figure has gone down from 9·9 per cent. in February, and in May it was 4·2 per cent., which was an improvement.
There are many small textile and engineering firms in my constituency. This is the strength of the area because when times are difficult these small firms are much more resilient, more adaptable and provide the goods more quickly and at a cheaper price than some of the larger companies do. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Spence) has left the Chamber, because I disagree with what he said about bringing in firms from Germany, the United States and Japan. I feel that we have to look after our own firms, and that our real growth will come from the small companies which are already established.
I feel, too, that many of these firms, with increased production and larger profits, are in a much healthier position than they were two or three years ago, particularly as money is now more readily available from the banks. One of the big problems facing small companies is that of being able to borrow money for expansion purposes, and I am happy to report that the situation is much easier than it was two or three years ago.

Mr. John Mendelson: There is no evidence of that.

Miss Hall: I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit the small firms in my constituency. If he does, he will find that what I have said is true. I hope that next weekend the hon. Gentleman will come to Keighley. If he does, I shall take him round the successful small companies there.

Mr. Proudfoot: Was it my hon. Friend's experience that when the Socialists were in power mergers mopped up many of the small, vigorous companies?

Miss Hall: That was one reason why so many of the small companies went out of existence. Other reasons were increased taxation, both personal and company, and capital gains tax on estate duty, which, I am glad to say, the present Government have altered.

Mr. Mendelson: rose—

Miss Hall: I shall not give way, because I propose to give three examples of successful small firms.

Mr. Mendelson: rose—

Miss Hall: Very well.

Mr. Mendelson: It goes without saying that I am always more than pleased to accept any invitation which the hon. Lady is prepared to extend to me, but I wish that I could agree with her comments about investment. The hon. Lady must have seen the recent survey in the Financial Times which showed that the Treasury was gravely worried because, although there was a lot of money available for borrowing, new investment was not forthcoming.

Miss Hall: I shall give the hon. Gentleman three classic examples of successful investment. If a firm is to be successful, it must have good leadership. That is essential. Secondly, everyone in the firm must work as a team. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) talk about "bosses". The tragedy is that people talk about "us" and "them", about "bosses" and "workers". That is a dangerous attitude and it does not represent the true situation. Everybody is in the battle for survival together, whether it be behind a desk or at a machine, and that cannot be emphasised too much. All this talk about "bosses" and "us" and "them" does untold damage. In the West Riding there is more team work, leadership and loyalty than one finds in other areas, and that is one of the assets that we should discuss. The strike record in the textile industry in Yorkshire is one of the best in the country, and I do not think that that fact is appreciated.
The House knows that the machine tool and engineering industries are not in a particularly happy state. There is the

machine tool exhibition this week which should help. About six or eight weeks ago a man who has a small machine tooling business came to see me. He told me that during the previous week he had travelled 1,100 miles round the country and had obtained enough orders to keep his firm fully employed for the next year. He said that his problem was that of getting the orders carried out, and he is now looking for new premises in which to expand his business. That is the first success story which I want the House to remember.
The other two success stories are in textiles. One firm is engaged in knitting, dyeing and finishing. It is now excavating the second part of its extension, which when completed will cost £1½ million, and it is taking on extra labour. This is a real success story. I rang up the firm one lunchtime and went through to one of the directors. I said "There must be a mistake. I have missed the switchboard". He said, "When the girls are out for lunch, I take the calls". That is a story of teamwork and leadership about which we should talk a lot more.
Another firm is in carding and combing of wool. As a direct result of the Budget, it decided to build a new unit for the carding and combing department. This was not considered before the end of April. It will be in production at the end of September, and the machinery and the building itself will have cost £200,000. This is a direct result of Government policy and a success story we should hear more about.

Mr. Hardy: I should like to know the numbers employed. Would the hon. Lady also comment on the fact that these examples of hers may be due to the availability of money? We should not agree that the main effect of the availability of money in Yorkshire and Humberside and the rest of the country has not been to encourage this desirable expansion but to encourage the greedy land speculator and to ensure that land and house prices in Yorkshire rise as fast as everywhere else?

Miss Hall: I fail to see what the Government's measures for industry have to do with land speculators. I have given three examples—there are probably


some in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency—of the Government helping industry, industrialists and the whole of the work force.
What is interesting about these textile firms is that they are working a seven-day week around the clock. When this expensive machinery is installed, they realise that it must be worked this length of time in order to get the return on it. These firms have very low labour turnover. Employees are well paid. They work a 28-day system with 14 days on and a break of four or five days off, so they get far more than the normal weekend. This is appreciated, and when they work they work very hard. But when they are off, they are really off and can enjoy themselves.
This will be the changing pattern of industry when there is modernisation and investment—getting rid of the 9 to 5 day and having round-the-clock work for everybody.

Mr. Richard Kelley: It has been going on for donkey's years.

Miss Hall: No it has not. This is happening now, particularly in the textile industry.

Mr. Kelley: There has been a Continental week in the textile industry for many years—more than 14 years that I know of. It has been prevalent throughout Yorkshire, so the hon. Lady is talking a load of nonsense.

Miss Hall: I am not talking a load of nonsense. I go around and talk to these firms, which know their own industry—which the hon. Gentleman obviously does not.
Communications are also important. Enough has been said about the M1 and the M62, but very little about the Aire Valley motorway, which will go up almost from Bradford. This is a very serious situation. The original plan was announced some years ago, and when we ask for concrete information we are just told that studies are still taking place. This is serious on two counts. First, industry requires better communications to get out of the Keighley area down to the M1 and the M62, and particularly to the ports of Merseyside and Humberside. Second, the people

living in the houses which will have to come down for this motorway are generally elderly people; it is much more serious for them, because they find it so much more difficult than young people to move or to get mortgages. I therefore agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) said about information coming back.
There has been talk about housing. In Keighley we have a shabby rundown area, again with mainly elderly people, who do not find it easy to keep up the appearance of their homes. Instead of dealing with individual houses and individual streets, we have taken the whole area and intend to give it a complete facelift. Certain areas will be cleared and left as open space, with grass and so on, and made much more pleasant. We hope to bring back young families and children, to give a balanced population. One of our problems in the centres of cities is a declining, elderly population.
I know that the Under-Secretary is aware of our problems. We have applied for roads to be shut off before the work can start, and there seems to be a log-jam in the Department when it comes to getting an answer. There is frustration and there are money problems. This is undesirable.
Lack of communication is one of the biggest problems between Government and people, Government and organisations, and Government and councils. A great deal of help is available for individuals and firms, but they do not realise what they are entitled to receive. This problem arises, of course, in the social services. This lack of communication makes the facelifts of such rundown areas in the West Riding much more difficult. The help is there, and the next thing is to get it where it is needed. This is one of the top priorities in Yorkshire and Humberside.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I do not want to comment too much on the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) except to welcome the success story she described. But she said nothing about the depressing stories of the closure of factories in Yorkshire, one or two of them in my constituency. I would not have said that it


was a lack of leadership that caused this. It was a lack of something, possibly a lack of business. That is what is wrong with the country at the moment.
The Minister chastised my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) with the fact that the Labour Government did not put into operation the recommendations that my right hon. Friend made. Circumstances have changed. Unemployment is much higher than when we left office or when the Hunt Report came out. The Minister was not being fair to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Chataway: My point simply was that the Hunt Committee had warned about what was likely to happen and had made certain recommendations. The last Government did not implement them and we have done so. I should have thought that that was a fair argument.

Mr. Wainwright: But the Government have taken a long time to put this into operation—after unemployment had risen considerably.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) talked about this side of the House running down Yorkshire. That is ridiculous. If part of any area is not up to standard, one is entitled to criticise it without being thought to criticise the whole county. Yorkshire has plenty of beauty, and much to be praised.
I comment briefly about communications, especially roads. Whilst many benefits can be derived from the M1 and A1 roadways, it is essential that we improve road communications in Yorkshire. Four new roadways are now required to open up commercial traffic within the region and to give much needed outlets to traffic of all kinds. Not only must we have a speed up of the work on the M62 but it must be borne in mind that if we enter the Common Market on 1st January, 1973, that road should be quickly extended across the country, from Liverpool to Hull. This is essential.
The first of the other new roadways should be the Sheffield to Manchester motorway, crossing the Pennines. This must be given urgent attention. This roadway should also extend to south

Merseyside and south Humberside. This would complement the M62, thus helping tremendously to bring greater opportunities for free flowing traffic, thus opening out industrial expansion into the Yorkshire and Humberside region. The M1 should be extended northwards and coupled with the A1 at some place beyond Harrogate or Knaresborough.
There is also a necessity for improvement in the Huddersfield-Bradford-Skipton area. Road improvements there are essential. This planned Airedale route ought to receive favourable consideration by the Minister. There has been much talk of a Barnsley to Doncaster new road. This is essential to open up that part of the country, a part in which I reside.
The Government should make up their mind on these proposals. Now is the time to get cracking with these jobs. The road construction companies have the capacity to do the work. We have the men, and far too many of them are out of work. We also have the materials. Throughout the county we have numerous dirt stacks which could be used for filling in roadways.
Our ports ought to be modernised. It is no good having good roadways unless the ports which have to carry the traffic are modernised and use the container system so that ships can have a quick turn-round.
Our canals should receive urgent attention. We have an extremely good canal system. If our canals were widened slightly they could carry boats of up to 1,000 tons, which would be of great help in taking some weight of our roads.
The Dearne Valley, which is my constituency, lies in a triangle formed by Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster. Unemployment in my constituency is so great and has been so persistent for so long that—whether or not hon. Members on the Government side of the House accept it—the valley is becoming rather a depressed area. Mexborough does not have a great deal of industry in its district. Its people have to travel far a field for jobs. Surrounding Mexborough are many industrial sites, and in the Dearne Valley area and around the other three towns I have mentioned and further south of Doncaster is a belt of high unemployment. But there are plenty of


industrial sites. It is time that the Government brought new industries to this area.
A fear still exists among coal miners because the future of the coal industry is not guaranteed. The Government ought to produce a fuel policy which would give guarantees to the coal industry about its future. The man working in the pits today ought to be made aware that he will have a job for the next 20 years at the minimum. If that job happens to go by the wayside and the pit happens to be closed, other industries should be brought to the area.
The same applies to the steel industry. Rationalisation is taking place. Unemployment and redundancies are occurring in that industry, and there is no guarantee about jobs. The Minister talked about the steel industry and about how much the Government were investing in it. I remember that when the Labour Government took over the steel industry experts said that to modernise it would cost £4,000 million. When talking about an annual investment of £267 million, one has to bear in mind what is really required. If the Government had spent the sums recommended to the Labour Government the industry would have increased its output and would have found jobs for the men who have been made redundant due to rationalisation.
What we require in this part of Yorkshire is more diversification of industry. In addition to the expansion required of many of the existing industries, new industries must be encouraged. But the Government have no plan. Why do they not set up a committee to examine the trends of employment, to find out what kind of employment will be required in the next 10 or 20 years where new industries have been brought into being, and to find out what those future industries will be like, so that they can plan the economy of the nation to cater for the new industries, thereby making certain that the economy improves all the time?
As for the region as a whole, with improved road communications and the existing railway system it could become once again a hive of industry. It is very close to Birmingham and the South, and with unproved road communications we could transport our goods there quite

easily. The completion of the M62 and the Sheffield-Pennine motorway would mean good road communications with both the east coast and the west coast.
We have an experienced labour force which could easily be trained to become semi-skilled and skilled for other industries. We are short of training establishments, and the Government ought to bring more into Yorkshire. There has been too much migration of labour. If it had not been for the migration of labour from Yorkshire, the unemployment figures would have been tremendously higher than they are at present
It is the responsibility of any Government, in any system of society, to provide work for their people. It is a disgrace for our nation to have bad, dilapidated schools and hospitals, bad housing up and down the country and great areas in which improvement is needed when at the same time we have men out of work. Therefore, it is time that the Government saw to it that these recommendations are carried out.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I take up one of the points made by the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright). He suggested a widening of our canal system. I have often felt that what is required is that the four major estuaries, Mersey, Humber, Thames and Severn, should be joined by a decent canal system. I commend this suggestion to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Dearne Valley praised the speech of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). I make no quarrel about that. However, I feel that the Opposition's Motion is both pessimistic and party political.
I shall confine my remarks entirely to Humberside. It is fair to say that both Governments have done the best that they possibly could for that area. There is no doubt that they have not yet succeeded in ending the isolation of Humberside, but I believe that that will be done when the Humber Bridge is completed. The Labour Government promised the Humber Bridge but the present Government will build it. The Government have taken what is probably the biggest step of all to unite the Humberside region by proposing in the Local Government Bill that one authority should control both


sides of the estuary. This is of immense importance for the future from the point of view of planning investment and for the future development of the area.

Mr. Albert Roberts: It would have been far better to have had one county, not south of the Humber. It would have been far better to have had Yorkshire as a province than to have a part Yorkshire and Humberside region.

Mr. Wall: The fundamental issue is that we should have both sides of the Humber under one authority. Hon. Members on both sides have stressed the importance of communications, and I am glad that it has recently been announced that the M62 and the M18 will go through into Hull. It has been said that the section from Snaith to Balkholm will be completed during 1976. Only last week we learned that the motorway would go on right into Hull, but it has not been announced when it will be completed. These motorways must be open at the same time as the Humber Bridge is completed. It is planned to complete the bridge in 1975, and it would be disastrous if the motorways were not completed until one or two years later.
The contract for the Humber Bridge will be worth about £25 million and will be placed in the very near future. It will be the longest clear span bridge in the world, with a length of over 4,500 ft. British consortia have built bridges in Istanbul, Rio de Janeiro and Melbourne which are all, in their particular classes, record bridges as far as length is concerned. I hope that when the contract for the Humber Bridge is placed it will be with a British firm. It would be most unfortunate in the present state of unemployment if the last major estuary in the country was bridged by a foreign contractor. I hope everything will be done to make certain that this magnificent scheme is completed by a British consortium.
When the bridge is built, the general idea seems to be that once the motorist crosses it he will turn right or left into Hull or the West Riding. I believe that quite a lot of traffic will continue on, and it is therefore important to have a northern exit from the bridge leading to the Tyne and the Tees. A road is being planned between Swinland and Skidby in my constituency but I understand that

this will be a fairly narrow road, not dual carriageway, and that no date has been fixed for its completion. It is most important that this should be of adequate width and be completed at the same time as the Humber Bridge is opened.
May I at this point ride my old hobbyhorse again and remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about the importance of the Beverley bypass because I believe that a great deal of traffic will be generated by the Humber Bridge and there are buildings of national importance in Beverley; namely the Minster and St. Mary's? If foreign container lorries weighing 40 tons go through this county town and use the country roads they will create absolutely havoc in the area and endanger the environment.
It is also important to plan for the reclamation of the Humber estuary. I am not thinking of a Europort under Spurn Head. That may come in the future but it is a long way off. Land on the west of the estuary that is above the site for the Humber Bridge should be reclaimed for industrial building which will eventually be necessary. Industrial areas should be sited on reclaimed land and not on good farmland such as is suggested in the Humberside Survey at Dalton Holme in my constituency. We should take a lesson from the Dutch, who have reclaimed an immense amount of land. This could fairly easily be repeated in the Humber estuary for the location of new industries.
The port of Hull was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who pointed out that £25 million had been invested in the port in recent years but that last year it had shown a loss of over £1 million. Something is radically wrong with the port of Hull. Some of the major users of the port—for instance, the tanning industry—have cut their use by some 50 per cent., and much the same story applies to timber and coal. I have in my hand a document prepared by one of the major users, and I quote the first sentence:
The attitude of the Docks Board over the past few years leaves a lot to be desired so far as port users are concerned—invariably without prior consultation they have decided on changes in charges and facilities which ship owners, agents and merchants alike have had to accept as the strongest protests have rarely had any effect.


The document says that these charges were introduced without much consultation with the user, that in the past 18 months charges have increased by 48½ per cent., and that another 5 per cent. increase is planned.
I understand that the form of the port of Hull is changing from the long sea to the short sea trade but it is absolutely essential that we get the port running satisfactorily before Britain enters the Common Market. I believe that the Common Market will provide an immense challenge to Hull, and if the port is ready to take that challenge up there will be great prosperity for Humberside in the future.
I shall make five suggestions of what should be done. There should be much better co-operation between the Docks Board and the port users. I have already referred to one of the remarks by the port users, and I have a number of similar papers in my hand which I will not deal with in view of the late hour. If the situation does not improve a Government inquiry will be necessary.
The question of interest charges was raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I believe that interest of 9 per cent. has to be paid on £1,250,000. I accept that the port must pay its way, but these are old debts. Cannot the Government do something about them?
Then there is the question of un-required assets. Surely land belonging to the Docks Board which is not now wanted and, above all, land belonging to the railways which is not now used for railway sidings should be sold off as rapidly as possible. I know of a number of industries which would like to acquire that kind of land in the port area.
There is the question of the closure or future use of the William Wright and Albert Docks. I mention this very briefly because I know the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) wishes to speak on this subject. I understand that the value of the docks is £4 million and if the users are required to earn enough to pay the 9 per cent. interest each year of this sum the question of these docks being used by the fishing industry must almost be ruled out.

Mr. James Johnson: Since it is not likely that I shall be able to speak, may I now ask a question? Does the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) accept my view that the deep sea fishing fleet should move out of the old St. Andrew's docks because it would take an awful lot of money to get them up to top form? Instead, it should move into the Western Commercial Dock, which is in danger from a hasty and ill-thought-out decision to close it. It could be made usable for the fishing fleet.

Mr. Wall: As usual we agree on these matters. I agree that this is what should happen. Whether it is possible for the fishing industry to take over these docks fully I doubt because of the reasons I have already given. The charges would be too high. But the docks could remain as a dual purpose facility, one of the partners being the fishing industry.
Lastly, there is the question of labour relations. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked about the transference of work to the small ports up river, and gave certain reasons. He did not mention the key reason, which is the absurd one-day strikes which have been going on in the port of Hull over the years, wrecking the port and forcing users to go elsewhere. There is a complete lack of discipline in the Hull docks. The union leaders are doing their best, but there is an inter-union dispute, and the whole position is bedevilled by bad labour relations with the Docks Board and the users.

Mr. McNamara: In fairness to the dockers, would not the hon. Gentleman care to state the number of dockers employed in the port of Hull before decasualisation, after Devlin Stage 1 and after Devlin Stage 2, and the number of jobs in prospect, and then say whether the men are wrong to try to defend their jobs?

Mr. Wall: Every hon. Member knows that the number of jobs is being decreased by about 40 per cent. by containerisation. That does not mean that there must be one-day strikes strangling the port, preventing any chance of any dockers earning a good day's wage.

Mr. Kelley: rose—

Mr. Wall: I will not give way, because I have given way three times already. I would only remind the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) of what one of the major dock users said recently about the Hull docks. I quote from the Hull Daily Mail:
If they carry on with the one-day stoppages it really will put paid to the port because some companies have said that if there is a return to these unofficial strikes they will not ship through Hull in the future.
That is the hard fact. Whatever the reasons—and I have considerable sympathy with the dockers—if the one-day strikes go on, the port of Hull is doomed.

Mr. Kelley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wall: No.
I have one more comparatively minor point, concerning the smaller shipbuilding yards. In my constituency there is a very efficient shipbuilding yard, Richard Dunstans, which has an excellent export record. It has another yard in Thorne. The two yards are under certain difficulties over the proposed subsidies. In view of the time I will not worry the House with the details now, but I know that the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) will join me in representing them to the Minister in the near future.
To sum up, I remind the House that Humberside depends on its port, and that the port depends on communications. By 1975–76 communications will be good. Therefore, it is up to us to make certain that the port puts its affairs in order by then. I hope very much that, by co-operation between the Docks Board, the users and the dockers, that may be achieved, because it is the most important of all factors in the Humberside.

8.31 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I am most grateful for the support given by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) to the particular calls of the shipbuilding firm which operates in both his constituency and mine. I assure him that I shall endeavour to pursue the matter as far as I can within the Standing Committee dealing with the Industry Bill.
I want to devote my remarks to the need for improved airport facilities in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

and in particular the need for a new regional airport. I emphasise those words, because we are often confused about what we mean by a new regional airport. I am not speaking of air feeder services to major international airports, and I am not thinking of a major intercontinental airport. I am thinking of a regional airport which would have services to anywhere within the continent of Europe and within the British Isles. Therefore, we must first draw a distinction between the problems raised in the debate about the future of the Leeds-Bradford Airport and the need for an entirely new regional airport. The two issues are quite separate.
The problems surrounding the possibility of extension of the present airport at Yeadon must be looked at separately from the need for a major new development to serve the region as a whole. Indeed, the letter which hon. Members on both sides will have received recently from the Secretary to the Yorkshire Airport Action Committee, the pressure group behind the need for extending the Leeds-Bradford Airport makes the point that:
a distinction must be maintained between the strictly 'local' nature of an extended Leeds/Bradford Airport, operating schedule flights to domestic and near-European destinations, and that of a regional airport whose very nature would demand a much greater range of services if it were ever to prove economically successful.
I do not agree wholeheartedly with all that is said there, but it pinpoints the difference between the two concepts that we are talking about.
If we are to consider the prospect of a new regional airport, we must also bear in mind the hope that one day it would act as a new economic magnet, that it would not only provide better flying facilities for passengers by air but would also act as a catalyst for economic development in the vicinity.
Those of us who travel to airports in other parts of the country know of the industrial estates which tend to grow up in the neighbourhood of those airports with a lot of distribution centres. They are places where manufacturers want to gather together their goods for freight transport overseas. If we determine the best location for a new regional airport, we shall have to be mindful of the way in which it will help to bring new economic


development and provide new employment opportunities for areas round about.
In the south-eastern portion of what is the present West Riding, there is every need, economically, for such a major new injection. I hope that wherever a new airport is to be it will be centrally within Yorkshire and Humberside as a whole.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) leaves that point, which is priority number one—the extension of the runway at Yeadon Moor, the Leeds-Bradford airport or the international airport?

Dr. Marshall: As I have already indicated, I do not regard these matters as issues against one another. As the Member for the Goole constituency, it is not part of my brief to speak about the Leeds-Bradford area.
I am particularly concerned with the two reports which have already appeared dealing with the need for a new regional airport. In 1967 there appeared, first, a report commissioned by a body called the Consultative Council for Airport Development in Yorkshire and Humberside which was produced by Alan Stratford and Associates. That report favoured a new regional airport on Thorn Waste in my constituency. Not satisfied with that, the joint committee which runs the Leeds-Bradford Airport commissioned last year the Metra Consulting Group to look at airport regional needs. Last month that group produced its report "an Airport for Yorkshire". The report favoured an entirely new airport at Balne Moor, another place in my constituency overlapping the boundary of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hems worth (Mr. Beaney).
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) had never heard of Balne Moor. I hope that he will note the correct pronunciation of that place. Although Balne is spelt differently it rhymes with Thorn. These two sites are central to my constituency and, therefore, I have a close interest in the prospects of development at either site.
Thorne Waste, which was suggested in the earlier report, is described in a recent editorial in the Goole Times as follows:

It is there, on the map, as a bald patch of nothing in a featureless countryside—a stretch of sour, waterlogged land lying low to the south of Goole.
There is very little habitation anywhere near.
The Balne Moor site is entirely agricultural land with scattered residential development but without any village focus. The only focus for the people of the locality is a small Methodist chapel which lies close to the proposed alignment for the airport which has been suggested at Balne Moor. I visit the village chapel from time to time.
These two sites are only nine miles apart as the crow flies. They are both adjacent to the route which has now been settled for the M62. However, regarding land usage, these two sites areas different as chalk and cheese. The development of these two sites will affect local people in entirely different ways.

Mr. Kelley: Does my hon. Friend agree that a large concentration of population in my constituency would be affected by sound nuisance from the flight path of any airport development at Balne, or Balne Moor, as he may call it?

Dr. Marshall: The flight path suggested for Balne Moor will go over the villages of Norton and Camps all in my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that he has an active interest in this proposal because of that factor.
Looking at it from the point of view of my constituents, I know from all the indications I have so far had that local people are 90 per cent. against development at Balne Moor. I know also that for economic reasons local people are more than 90 per cent. in favour of development at Thorne Waste.
The two reports I have mentioned have been compiled by two different firms of consultants using different methods. There is some validity in both methods and there are gaps, but to date no proper comparative study has been made of these two sites. Therefore, I submit that before any further discussion of the proposed regional airport for Yorkshire and Humberside goes ahead we need a straightforward comparison on a fair costing basis between the two sites. This may turn out to be something like Cublington and Foulness yet again. If it does, we need to know how much more expensive


would be the development of the Thorne Waste site. It may be that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said, the Government should take a lead and undertake this study comparing the two sites. Thorne and Balne. Certainly as far as people and environmental considerations go, my money goes on the Thorne Waste site.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The debate has been disappointing because to plagiarise the metaphor of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley), hon. Members have perhaps stuck to their soap boxes too much in their own bush. In fact, Yorkshire has proved itself to be highly disparate. There is very little in common between the West Riding wool textile district and the South Yorkshire coalfield, between Huddersfield and the East Riding or between Humberside and the deep south around Sheffield. There is a very great difference between these different areas and that has made our debate extremely inchoate.
The ramshackle Opposition Motion was not as helpful as some hon. Members have suggested. I felt that the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) ill-timed his speech. If he and his right hon. Friends had tabled that same ramshackle Motion some months back, I could have felt it would have had more validity.
I felt that the timing was bad. The right hon. Gentleman has missed the bus on this one, as did the Labour Government when they were in power by not implementing the Hunt Committee's recommendations and by ignoring the recommendations of the economic assessment to 1972 which showed when they were in power in 1969 that on projections available unemployment would grow more rapidly in Yorkshire and Humberside than in any other region in the country.
It was also unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman tried to get away with a bit of Barnsley blarney about the unemployment statistics. The statistics quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, although he did not admit it, referred specifically to male unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman could not fool me on that. I know that the Bradford figures are of the order of 4 per cent. overall,

whereas 6 per cent. relates to male unemployment.
Another disappointing aspect of the Motion is its implicit criticism of rationalisation. Rationalisation, for all the pains involved, offers the hope of greater stability for the future, of continued competitiveness and of assured employment, as we have discovered in the wool textile trade, where the loss of jobs has been broadly coincident with that forecast in the Atkins Report of 1969. It leaves the industry competitive and able to enter the Common Market with confidence. No one can suggest that bankruptcies and financial failures are a recipe for increased employment.

Mr. David Clark: The hon. Member, who has a great interest in the wool textile trade, has said that the Atkins Report suggested that there would be a rundown in the textile industry Has not the rundown been many times greater than that report suggested? Last year alone 15,000 jobs were lost in the wool textile industry, mainly in Yorkshire.

Mr. Wilkinson: I know that the rundown by early 1971 had reached 23,000. This was forecast to happen by the mid-1970s. However this rundown, which must be faced, leaves the industry more competitive, because there has been much capital investment.
What is needed is retraining—this is coming, as for instance in the Bradford area where a new Government training centre is to be instituted—and greater diversity. In my constituency an extra 750 jobs have just been created in colour television manufacture. There are increasing opportunities in other spheres.
Beyond that, it is important to try to analyse what influences industrial location. The first is an adequate supply of labour. This is available, but training is essential. The Government are pursuing vigorous steps in this regard. The second influence is a more flexible industrial development certificate policy. This has already come with the increased allowance to 15,000 sq. ft. without an IDC application. The third lies in environmental factors. There are the 75 per cent. housing improvement grants and the general improvement areas. Bradford has


the third highest record for general improvement areas in the whole country. These are very important matters, particularly if they are allied to infrastructural improvement such as communications.
Education too cannot be ignored, because it is crucial to creating the skills for employment prospects. In the regional strategy emphasis was placed on the primary sector. The Government are spending an extra £29 million on the improvement of primary schools. There is much of importance to be pursued in further education as well.
In my area it is important that courses to diploma standard should be available at the regional college of art in fashion and in graphic design, which are job-orientated skills. It is important that our university should have an expanding textile department. We must see too that at the technical college facilities for textile tuition are still provided. The business school at Bradford University is one of the most exciting features of the West Riding. It has a high reputation. It is going through an uneasy period with the imminent change of head, but I hope that it will continue to expand and prosper.
I would look also very much to the institution of an undergraduate school of medicine at the University of Bradford, and I know that this is something which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott), with all his professional interest and knowledge, has pursued over many years and fought for. I hope it will come.
I hope also that the investment incentives will prove successful. A great deal of new industry has been interested in moving to the West Riding. The industrial officer of Bradford Corporation has spoken not only of local industries which wish to expand but of Continental firms which wish to come. For example, the large general engineering concern Flender (UK) has announced that 100 new jobs are being created at Thornbury. The managing director said, however, that good air communications were essential. In other words, modern industry requires good communications with its markets, and the best market is going to be increasingly in Europe.
In the Edwards Report on civil air transport in 1968, the regional develop-

ment aspects of civil aviation were constantly emphasised and supported by the Committee. It is my prayer that common sense will prevail in this matter. The fact is that services at Leeds-Bradford airport will cease in 1975 unless the runway is extended. I have no interest in interfering with any of the aspirations of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), as he has no interest in interfering with mine. All I know is that the Gatwick airport runway extension was granted although many more people were affected by noise in that area—indeed, four times as many—and that all the economic arguments we have advanced for the Leeds-Bradford extension were explicitly supported and upheld by the Department of the Environment's letter of 9th May, 1972, giving sanction for the extension of the Gatwick runway. Yet Gatwick does not fulfil in any sense the industrial purpose that Leeds-Bradford does in the West Riding, so it is important to get this extension.
I know that Goole and Balne Moor have their appeal, but no one has explained where the money for this development is to come from and no one has been able to disprove the increasing allure that the East Midlands airport will have. The runway extension at Leeds-Bradford will cost just over £1 million, aircraft are getting quieter all the time and many of the disadvantages which the Secretary of State saw in the extension have now been proved to be not as real as he feared at the time.
I think we have every reason in Yorkshire to be highly proud of the actions in many sectors which the Government are taking. Employment is picking up; prospects for the wool trade have not looked better for many a year; and I only hope that we can get the Leeds-Bradford runway extension to give us the air communications we need in the area.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Harper: This is the first ever debate in which we have discussed specifically the problems of Yorkshire and Humberside, although we have discussed other areas ad nauseam. I recall the House discussing the North-East throughout the night in 1962.
Yorkshire, paradoxically enough, has always been regarded as a prosperous region. I do not know why, because it is anything but that. The average wages


are the lowest of any region, with the exception of Northern Ireland. Reports have been made over past years on the needs of the region by several bodies, including the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, the British Road Federation, the Yorkshire Sports Council, West Riding County Council and the West Riding Development Association, which is composed of members and officials of the respective local authorities. All this has been done with a view to stopping the rot, reducing unemployment and slowing down the rate of emigration, in particular of the young, to other areas and, what is more damning, overseas.
The Yorkshire Labour Members of Parliament have been busy as well, with study groups on communications, coal, steel, textiles, the environment and the ports, and have published a 13-point plan to deal with the problems of the region. I trust and hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) has sent a copy of this report to the Minister. This report came out strongly in favour of development area status, which is a "must" for the Yorkshire area. The acceleration of the motorway building programme and the commercial use of the airports must be taken into account.
I want to talk about coal and the environment. More security should be given to the industry by the Government, and I mean management as well as men. We cannot afford to go on losing our technical people to other industries in this country or overseas. Two years ago we had a coalfield appraisal, and in the North Yorkshire area only four out of 21 pits were thought to have a long life. As this coalfield will continue to produce 9–10 million tons of coal a year for many years it is necessary to give security to those in the industry.
Increased technology will mean fewer men to win the coal, and new industries are desperately needed to provide employment, not only for the older men but for the school leavers, who have very few job opportunities. This has been brought out in the excellent document "Strategy for the West Riding" edited by the West Riding County Council. I was pleased and amazed to hear the Minister say that his plan is to expand the industry. I will tell him how to expand the coal in-

dustry—stop coal imports and reduce oil imports.
It is said that the unemployment figures in Yorkshire are not too bad. The average in the Yorkshire coalfield area is approximately 9·2 per cent. The highest is 12·8 per cent. at Hems worth and the lowest is at Castleford, my area, where it is 6·1 per cent. We have too readily accepted successive Governments telling us "Look, lads, there is only so much jam and if we spread it all over it will be too thin." Why not move the headquarters of the NCB from Hobart House in the West End of London to any of the regions in the coalfields of Lancashire or Yorkshire? There is not much coal got at Hobart House. Why not allow the NCB with its industrial complex to take, make and grasp opportunities to diversify, particularly in regions such as ours? We have always contended that the hiving off of the profitable parts of the industry was a pernicious attack upon it. If the NCB had the opportunity to diversify, into brewing for example, we would get that industry moving and there would be fewer contributions to the Tory Party.
I do not want to give the impression that we want to preserve the status quo. We want to move, we want to see new activities attracted to the industry by whatever means and to further the growth of new industries on sites such as the one in the Five Towns area referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Walter Harrison) played a large and important part in this, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) in the West Riding Development Association in getting this site to the planning stage. It is schemes such as this that will assure the future.
In Yorkshire we have the Dales, the Wolds and the beautiful coastline, when we can get away from this place to enjoy it. We also have a depressing heritage of pit heaps, slag heaps, abandoned collieries, bad housing and old schools. In Featherstone there has been one new school built since 1930. Is that progress? We have more than our share of industrial pollution and I am not forgetting foam on the river, because there are many more chapters to that saga.
The 13-point charter to which I referred encourages local authorities to appoint development officers. It could well be that the reorganisation of local government, if we get it, will afford opportunity to put this into effect, and to have development officers, and in this way the county could be effectively sold to would-be forward looking businessmen, to bring industry into the region.
I should like to say just a word about industrial development certificates. I was looking this up and I found that the total number of IDCs for the region for the past four years, for schemes of 20,000 sq. ft. and over, was 960, an average of 240 per year. In view of what has already been happening and the rundown in the coal and steel industries and in textiles, this is just not good enough. We have often been promised jobs in the pipeline. All I can say is that that line must stretch all the way to China; but not many of the jobs have found their way through to us yet.
Some of our womenfolk have to travel from the coalfield to Bradford miles away over bad roads—and we have heard a good deal about roads tonight—to do a little job of work. If the National Coal Board were able to diversify, into clothing for instance, and open up factories where our womenfolk could be employed where they are in the coalfield, less time would be spent in travelling, and in that time they could do extra work and thereby get extra money and help to expand the economy. I would like to see the Government take that matter up.
I know that other hon. Members want to get into the debate and that is why I am talking sharp and to the point. This debate has not come a moment too soon, and I trust that the Government will take immediate steps to solve some of the problems which have been talked about by hon. Members on both sides of the House. One of the most important and effective steps would be to give us development status. There is nothing to stop the Government, as Yorkshire's work force is first class—I used to be one of it—and could easily be retrained. It will be a tragedy if it is allowed to waste and, what is worse, rot.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I hesitate to rise at 9 o'clock

lest someone were to jump to the conclusion that I am winding up the debate. I wish my hon. Friend who will be winding up every good wish in what, I think, may be his maiden speech in his new capacity. I hope he will take note of some of the points I wish to raise, which are about communications.
It has been a constructive and interesting debate. The speech by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) was, perhaps, a little vitriolic, but we Yorkshire Members of Parliament are anxious to see much better opportunities for employment in Yorkshire and that Yorkshire should enjoy the prosperity and the level of wages which have certainly come to the south of England, and elsewhere in the country.
It was 1967 that the Hunt Committee was set up, and I welcome the fact that at last, in the Industry Bill and also in the recent White Paper, many of the recommendations of the Hunt Report are being implemented and that Yorkshire is at least being given intermediate status, if not the full development status asked for by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper). Yorkshire Members of Parliament are concerned about the prosperity of our region and we cannot be complacent at the fact that employment opportunities have dropped in the last 10 years to a much greater extent than they have in the country as a whole. In fact, employment opportunities in Yorkshire have dropped by 7·5 per cent. against a national drop of 4·8 per cent. over the last 10 years. The number employed in coal mining, for instance, dropped from 112,000 to 86,000 in five years, and in iron and steel from 93,000 to 79,000.
What can we do to improve the situation? Already, thanks to the measures taken under the Labour Government, when the then right hon. Member for Belper, now Lord George-Brown, introduced the concept of regional planning councils, we have the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Planning Council which in the intervening years has done much preparatory work to provide us with the information we so greatly need. The local West Riding branch of the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of Yorkshire Chambers of Commerce and the TUC regional committee have given some thought to what is


required. There is much that those who lead industry and society in Yorkshire can do for themselves to promote investment and employment opportunities. I readily support the view of the Planning Council that we should consider a development association in the Yorkshire region similar to the ones that have done so much elsewhere. The difficulty has been that individual area associations and boards are persuading industry into their own development areas to the detriment of other areas. I welcome intermediate status. It means that no longer does Yorkshire fall between two stools—thedevelopment areas in Scotland and the North-East and the richer areas of the South.
Perhaps the most valuable document is that prepared by the working party on Britain's entry into Europe, the most important aspect of which is the suggestion that the industries of Yorkshire should have good port facilities, not only for raw materials to come in but for exports to go out, so that those materials can be processed through to the wider market of Europe, This once again raises the question of transport and communication.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is well aware that hon. Members representing Sheffield constituencies are concerned that there be a positive decision about the Sheffield-Manchester motorway in the near future. Sheffield industry has had many setbacks, particularly the contraction in the steel and engineering industries over the last five years. In South Yorkshire there is a need to bring in materials from the western ports, particularly Liverpool, to be processed and perhaps sent through Hull and Humberside to new customers in the Community.
There is a strong environmental interest in connection with the proposed Sheffield-Manchester Motorway, as it will pass through the Peak Park, of which my hon. Friend should be aware, as is Lord Sandford, the Under-Secretary of State in another place, but employment and job opportunities in South Yorkshire have a priority which must be weighed against those interests.
The main point I wish to make concerns air transport. There is a report by the Metra Consulting Group in conjunc-

tion with Snow and Partners about an airport for Yorkshire. It is recommended that the airport should be sited not at Goole but, more economically, because it is nearer to the areas that use it, at Balne Moor. I hope that my hon. Friend will outline the alternatives before us. As hon. Members have pointed out, Leeds, Hull and, to a certain extent, Sheffield may require strips for the modern STOL aircraft which may be with us in 15 years, but in the meantime it is too costly to have three or four airports to serve Yorkshire. There must be a regional airport policy which will concentrate airport services, particularly for international air travel. Concentration will produce the economies and frequency of service which will put South Yorkshire as well as Humberside on the map so that visitors from Europe and other continents can gain ready access to those areas which are offering industrial opportunities. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on the responsibilities and work of the Civil Aviation Authority and Yorkshire's requirements in the context of a national airports policy.
The Government have been asked to do a great many things, and I would make only one comment in this respect—namely, that there are events which can make the task of Government more difficult. Inflationary wage settlements make employment opportunities less easy to come by. The right hon. Member for Barnsley, who is very much involved with the coal industry, will know that as a result of the settlement in February coal costs have increased. This has meant that the TUC regional committee and others have had to look at the impact of the Wilberforce findings on the coal industry in Yorkshire. This year's wage increase could threaten next year's employment opportunities in the mines.
We have recently had a statement by the Minister for Transport Industries, which has been endorsed by the Chairman of the Railways Board, about further rationalisation of the regional structure. This will mean that the board's headquarters will move from Sheffield to York. An assurance was given that there would be limited redundancies which would be covered by wastage. The fact that, because of the settlement, British Rail will have to economise and rationalise may well mean that opportunities for


reducing redundancy in Sheffield will be made that much more elusive.
Finally, I welcome the statement on the dock situation by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked about the use of other docks in the Humberside area. Manufacturers are looking for the cheapest form of bringing in raw materials to their factories and for taking finished products to their customers. But also industrial strife, perhaps due to frustration and desperation, may also mean that continuity of transport will elude them. This is an important consideration since customers expect delivery on time. I hope that my hon. Friend in winding up the debate will emphasise the fact that there are in Yorkshire many good opportunities for the future provided they are not jeopardised by outside events and also will stress the importance of good communications.

9.12 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: This has been a most useful and constructive debate. I wish to point out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), whose constituency problems are very similar to my own, wishes to be associated with my remarks.
We appreciate that the Minister for Industrial Development is acquainted with the problems in our area, and the debate has served to show that the problems in my part of the West Riding are not dissimilar from the problems in large parts of Yorkshire as a whole. What is tragic about the decline of so many of these traditional industries, like textile and machine tools with which I am particularly concerned, is that it was out of the labour of the people of Yorkshire and of the land of Yorkshire that Britain grew to become a great industrial country. It was in the industrial revolution that the towns became black with soot and the people, through lack of sunshine contracted bronchitis, tuberculosis and rickets. Therefore, it is now the Government's duty to resuscitate these towns whose people have sacrificed so much and to give them help when they need it.
I was extremely disappointed with the Minister's treatment of one subject that is

mentioned in the Motion—namely, the low pay received by workers in the North. There is a gross disparity in wages between North and South and there still exist two nations in this respect. Yet the Minister rebukes Yorkshire men and women because they ask for a rise. However, he will see that there is gross inequality if he studies the figures of average rates of pay in the North as compared with those in the South. This is one of the major factors causing younger people to move out of Yorkshire and go south.
It is said in Yorkshire
Where there's muck there's brass.
But the brass is in the pockets of the wrong people.
I ask the Minister to take note of two specific requests. The right hon. Gentleman has congratulated himself and his Government on making us an intermediate area. However there is no point in that if, as has happened in my constituency, a firm closes up and moves to a development area. After all, a job for a man in the West Riding is just as important as a job for a man in a development area. We do not want to see intermediate areas becoming development areas in the future. Therefore we urge the right hon. Gentleman when he is considering the advantages of being an intermediate area to bear in mind that there is a tendency for industrialists and employers to look at development areas in this rather rosy way. We urge employers to think more of moving from the boom towns and cities up to the development areas and not to take the lifeblood away from the Yorkshire region, because that is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The second point is to remind the Minister that, although private enterprise has been extolled from the benches opposite during the debate, we have seen a strange conversion in the attitude of the Government to the rôle that the State can play in its aid to industry. We shall not rub that in. However, if the Government are to aid industry, they should do it properly or not at all.
Most people with knowledge of the machine tool industry consider that the much-heralded £9 million to £10 million which the Government are giving the industry will do little to assist the extremely


serious situation in which it is at the moment. We are told that it is the same all over the world. The fact remains that four-fifths of our machine tools are old and in need of replacement. Investment is higher in the French, German, United States and Swedish machine tool industries than it is in our own. If the Government wish to resuscitate the industry—and it does not believe in protectionism though certainly it needs help—it will require many millions of pounds. I have heard it suggested that between £50 million and £100 million will be required to take the industry out of decline. After all, the machine tool industry is the barometer of the industrial climate in Britain.
We on this side of the House believe that if we could have new growth industries coming to Yorkshire and at the same time some assistance for the older ones, Yorkshire would uphold its tradition of being the industrial backbone of Britain.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) has described this debate as historic. Certainly it has been informative, instructive and stimulating, with a quiet but insistent pride in Yorkshire reflected in every speech
I am grateful for my own part in the debate, and I pay this early tribute to the generosity of my right hon. and hon. Friends. My only regret is that some of them who I know have worked extremely hard for many years for this kind of presentation of Yorkshire's problems and Yorkshire's case have been excluded from the debate through no fault of their own.
Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been able to take part have brought to the attention of the House the main problems of our region, which, though still vital and with great potential, is making less progress than it should. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has shown how the comparative lack of private as well as public prosperity is reflected in the region's infrastructure and has been concealed in turn by a low level of unemployment. My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) and Halifax (Dr. Summerskill)

have shown how net migration within, from west to east as well as from the region towards the Midlands and South-East, maintained a relatively low level of unemployment, and thus for many years denied the region the Government aid conferred on others.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has shown how too great a dependence for too long on the old staples of coal, steel and wool textiles lulled many into a false sense of economic security. Above all, my right hon. and hon. Friends have hammered home their experience, supported by recent analysis, that the root cause of the region's economic weakness is a lack of growth industry, aggravated by the persistence of an out-dated industrial structure.
Furthermore, those two factors, and others such as income and output, reflect the real determinants of prosperity in Yorkshire as well as elsewhere, and, taken together, these two trends point to a falling behind on the part of Yorkshire and Humberside.
What I find equally disturbing is the confessed unawareness of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, if this debate is a guide. Why do they not know? Some, notably the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr Wall), described our Motion as pessimistic. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) described it as ramshackle. Others, notably the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Spence), accused us of portraying an excessively gloomy picture. How do they explain that Yorkshire, with something near the national average income per head in 1949–50, had fallen to 3½ per cent. below the national average by 1959–60, and to 5 per cent. below by 1964–65? We have not necessarily got the up-to-date position.
How do they explain that since 1968 earnings and wages are lower and hours longer in Yorkshire and Humberside than in any other region in Britain, apart from East Anglia? They cannot mistake the significance of these trends. They must know, and none more so than the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), that low earnings and even lower household expenditure can only make for a relatively low regional multiplier in the further generation of wealth and income.
Finally, how do they explain that net output per person in manufacturing industry declined faster in Yorkshire in the post-war period than in any other region so that we now have the lowest net output per region, whereas in 1948 we had the fourth highest?
It was this question of uncertain economic growth, arising from an unattractive environment as well as structural change in certain parts of Yorkshire and Humberside, to which the Hunt Committee was asked to address itself, and in view of the importance which the right hon. Gentleman clearly attaches to Hunt it is important for me to recall that the Hunt Committee proposed measures to
assist with the process of industrial regeneration. This would aim less at attracting new industry…than at modernisation and stimulation of industry indigenous to the region…and the development of new centres of industrial growth.
One of its members, however, Professor A. J. Brown, insisted that
Old industrial areas, heavily specialised on declining or slow-growing industries, do not readily generate new growth internally on a scale adequate to maintain the momentum of their economies.
That, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) was quick to recognise, may be the crux of this debate.
In recent years Yorkshire and Humberside have sustained this level of new industrial and public investment and thus maintained a position at around the national average. We do not deny that, but the area has not been generating substantial extra employment because much of it has been in capital intensive industry. This suggests that Professor Brown may be right about the need for more aid to new industry, particularly employment-generating industry. Yet low incomes and declining employment reinforce each other in the failure of Yorkshire and Humberside to attract that new industry, particularly that one industry which we demonstrably lack at the moment, service industry.
It helps to explain why Yorkshire has been so unsuccessful in attracting finance and banking, professional and scientific services and public administration. It does not explain, however, why Yorkshire of all the regions should have had to accept the lowest relative proportion of civil

servants in 1965 and almost the lowest relative concentration of Crown properties by rateable value.
Is there any good reason why Yorkshire should not now be helped to attract a major Government office to its territory? Why should there be such a poor representation in our region of those industries which are the main financiers of research expenditure—of aircraft, electronics and other electricals?
General lack of employment opportunities could well be the result of cumulative interaction between slow adjustment to structural change and an unattractive industrial environment, thus discouraging service industry, notably the prestigious kind, but also accelerating gross migration from the area. Modernising the existing industries would only help to retard this process if the modernisation involved a greater variety of types of employment. New industries would seem to be necessary for this purpose, not just a better mix of the old.
Nowhere is the urgency of this more evident than in relation to employment opportunities for the young. So appalling is the problem in some parts of Yorkshire that it constitutes a situation of non-employment. If one never gets a job, one does not become unemployed. There is no evidence of lack of talent despite patchy educational facilities, but there is evidence on all sides of the region of a yawning gap between educational achievement and job opportunity.
Throughout the region now is to be found the most creditable indication of educational achievements, Nowhere is this more true, interestingly enough, than in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright), yet nowhere is the problem of youth unemployment more acute. There is such an extremely narrow range of possible jobs for the young, above all in the research-orientated and service industries—not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but in too many constituencies in our region.
Merely to recall the speeches of my hon. Friends is to identify the areas where the problem is most acute. As well as my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) reminded us that West Yorkshire has the


problem of population loss and the decline of the textile industry, with no obvious sign of new growth industries emerging. My hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley reminded us that South Yorkshire has a far too narrow, insecure economic base in coal and the metal trades. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) reminded us that there is no move yet towards realising the economic potential of Humberside, even though the feasibility study in 1969 called for a decision about major development to be taken no later than this year, 1972.
Their arguments seem irresistible. Without the application of the most vigorous practicable effort to the economy of the western section of the West Yorkshire conurbatiton, primarily the Bradford and Halifax areas, we can expect no more than the stabilisation of the population levels—not merely according to my hon. Friends but also according to the Regional Economic Planning Councils' "Regional Strategy". Without the most urgent attention to the Pennine Valleys, cradle of our industrial society, their character may be transformed and their communities may become dormitories, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) seemed to be all too well aware. With out the vigorous cultivation of a growth zone in South Yorkshire, it is likely that an increasing number of young people will leave the region. Without interventionist planning of the most far-reaching character, preferably by a para-governmental agency, the one asset that we have going for us in our region, the vast potential of Humberside, is unlikely to be realised. That would be a tragedy not only for youth employment prospects in Hull but also for future job opportunities through out the region. It would also be, perhaps, almost criminal neglect of a national asset.
Let me repeat, as my hon. Friends have stressed, that Yorkshire and Humberside is not yet in serious trouble. But the trends indicated by my hon. Friends show this to be imminent unless remedial steps are taken as a matter of urgency, these relate to the rundown of the region's staple industries of coal, steel and textiles, the associated environmental problems, the need for improved com-

munications and the compensating possibilities of Humberside.
All this comes through very clearly from a study of such reports as have been prepared and distributed by Mr. Frazer, West Riding's chief planning officer, and Mr. Ernest Hutchinson, the secretary of the West Riding Industrial Development Association, area studies such as those of "Doncaster", "Huddersfield and Colne Valley", "Halifax and Calder Valley", and "Humberside: a feasibility study", in addition to the "Regional Strategy" to which I have referred, the most recent publication "Growth Industries in the Region" and the Hunt Report, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Industrial Development attaches so much importance.
Where my hon. Friends part company with some of these findings however, as well as with the right hon. Gentleman, can be seen in their support for Professor Brown's note of dissent to the Hunt Report.
I repeat that we have confidence in our basic industries in Yorkshire and Humberside, but believe that they will have to be reinforced by new industry from outside if job opportunity in the region is to be preserved. Doncaster is a striking case in point, as would have been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) if he had been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Members on the Government side of the House have objected that the Opposition's Motion takes no account of the new regional policies put forward by the Government. As a matter of fact, the announcement of those new regional policies helped to prompt our desire for the debate and the drafting of our Motion. We welcome the new regional policies in principle. Why should we not welcome them? They are utterly consistent with the purposes of the Industrial Expansion Act which we passed in 1968. We regret that the present Government marked time and back-tracked for two years before taking up these powers. Where we have doubts is on the relevance and detailed application of the new regional policies. After all, Yorkshire and Humberside has neither an ailing economy nor one that is overstretched. We have no "lame ducks" which we


wish to keep afloat, nor are we susceptible to over-heating. We are conscious of a great past but, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Sir A. Broughton), we are eager to adapt and to innovate towards an equally illustrious future.
We recall the Secretary of State's words in the House on 22nd May when, introducing the Industry Bill, he referred to the need
for a flexible effort…to meet the special characteristics of the various regions".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1972; Vol. 837, c. 1009.]
But we are anxious lest these new regional policies are not flexible enough to provide the necessary conditions for Yorkshire and Humberside. Indeed, do they even conform to the Government's objectives? According to page 1 of the White Paper:
They must be as clear, simple and certain in their impact as possible.
The Secretary of State will recall the blast he got last week from the President of the CBI, which seemed to suggest that he certainly did not believe that they yet conformed to these objectives. Their reception in Yorkshire certainly confirms that there are people in this country, including employers, who do not believe that they are clear but think that they are obscure. They believe they are not simple, but elaborate and the certainty of their impact is questionable. Otherwise, how does the Minister for Industrial Development explain the rocket he received from the Yorkshire regional engineering employers last week? He met them, and, according to the Sheffield Morning Telegraph on 17th June, a spokesman on behalf of the employers warned that the Minister
will have to face some pretty tough questioning from our members. I hope he knows his stuff.
What prompted these words? They already had met him and they thought "the meeting was a 'complete waste of time'". The Chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Engineering Industries Association
urged Mr. Chataway to return for 'real talks'".
The newspaper report concludes
said an association spokesman: 'He will face a very thorough question session on Government policies'.

Mr. Chataway: It was most unfortunate, perhaps partly due to the length of time I thought it fit to devote to the trade unions with which I was having a meeting in the afternoon, that we did not have much time for talks. The nature of their complaint was not that there was anything unclear about the incentives. The nature of their complaint concerned the length of time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dodging."]

Mr. Duffy: Naturally, I was at pains to check the report. I understand that the complaint was not because of lack of time, but rather that it was a waste of time because of the lack of clarity and the lack of information. I think the Minister will understand, therefore, why we are so concerned about the application of the selective financial measures to Yorkshire and Humberside. I would like to ask the Minister some questions. I know he cannot asnwer them this evening, but no doubt he will make a note of them and let us have the information. Preferably he will let the employers in Yorkshire have the information.
First, what criteria will he employ and what strings will be attached? How far will Government investment in a particular scheme go? When will such large, no-ceiling deployments of public moneys lead to public equity? Will their distribution take place on a company basis or on a geographical basis? What of the special claims of Hems worth, Mexborough, Doncaster, Rotherham, Barnsley, Hull and Halifax? How far will the Minister be guided by economic and social factors, or the overall consideration of regional balance? When will the new regional industrial director be appointed? These are questions that employers, as well as my hon. Friends, are asking in Yorkshire at the moment. When will the new Industrial Development Board be set up? What plans does the Minister have for the consultation and co-ordination of such important bodies as trade unions, employers' associations, local authorities, the West Riding Industrial Development Association and the other economic development associations which exist in Yorkshire?
This is the first occasion on which the
deep review of the efficacy of past industrial regional policies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1972; Vol. 837, c. 1009.]


to which the Secretary of State referred has been debated in terms of particular regions. My hon. Friends have reason to be suspicious of deep-seated reviews and none more so than my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and the Sheffield divisions. The phrase "deep-seated review" triggers off deep-seated suspicions and that is why they have sought the debate because they are concerned about the possible consequences for their regions.
There is no question of them "knocking" the region as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Spence) alleged in the Press last week. On the contrary, my hon. Friends believe that their region could become the most exciting growth area in the country. With its superb communications, where the hills merge with the plains, the whole soon to be encompassed in a motorway box, it is clearly well poised to take the fullest advantage of the future development of the national economy.
In economic terms it is well blessed. It has an abundance of land, and much of it rich at that. The beauty of its rural and coastal areas assures tourism of a major rôle. It has the largest reserves of energy, in the form of coal under the earth and natural gas under the sea, of any region. In Kellingley it has the largest and most modern of collieries. In Drax it has the largest and most modern of power stations. In Humberside it has an area of great economic potential, which will undoubtedly act as a magnet on resource allocation throughout the economy.
If there is any logic in economic and market forces, considerable growth must take place. If there is any logic in economic planning, that growth should be encouraged, cultivated and fashioned to produce a lively and modern community.
It is because we do not think the Government are providing the necessary conditions or the right leadership that we felt obliged to table our Motion. We warn the Government that we shall pursue them relentlessly in the matter, for we have a sense of regional concern, deeper than their so-called deep-seated reviews. In this we are at one with all our hon. Friends in other regions. That is only one reason why we look to them with confidence to support us in the Lobby tonight.

9.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): First, I should like to commiserate with those hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson), the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy),Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts), Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) and Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark), who have sat through the debate and unfortunately have not been able to be called. But the fact that we have had 19 back bench speakers and four Front Bench speakers shows that this has been a good debate. Hon. Members have kept themselves very much to the point.
I hope to deal with some of the many matters raised. First, it has been recognised on both sides of the House that the problems of the region have not been created within the past two years Certainly they are deep-seated problems, which we are tackling for the first time in a truly effective and comprehensive way, and not only on the industrial development front. The whole question of economic development and faster growth in the economy, the considerably faster growth which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer has now set in train, will be of critical importance not only for Yorkshire and Humberside but for the regions throughout the country.
Constantly in the debate the question of communications was stressed as was, to a lesser extent but equally important, the question of the environment. I should like to say one or two things about the communications network. I believe that good communications and good roads are essentially an extension of factory production lines and should be viewed in that way. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development mentioned that in physical terms we have a road programme totalling about £516 million, with on-the-ground works now in progress of £80 million. These are record high figures for the region and should be acknowledged as such.
One point of importance not mentioned in the debate is the speeding-up of the


M42 and M69 from Coventry and the Midlands to the Ml, which will dramatically link Humberside, Hull and Yorkshire and the North of England generally with the Midlands. These two road programmes, costing nearly £100 million, will be extremely important for the development of Yorkshire and Humberside. The M1 is completely open. Of the M62, a most important road built at a total cost of over £100 million, the 12 miles between Huddersfield and Leeds, that section which has been delayed by box girders, will I hope be open later this year or early next year. The 11-mile link between Leeds and Pontefract is already under construction. This road will be completed by 1975 from Lancashire through to Humberside, as will at the same time a high-class dual carriageway road all the way to the Hull docks. This will be of major importance for the problems of Humberside and that port. The M18, bypassing Doncaster on the south, will connect with the M62 and will be finished by 1975. The Thorne bypass is already nearly completed. From Thorne the M180 will extend eastwards on the south of the Humber bypassing Scunthorpe and connecting with the new road leading to the Humber Bridge. These roads and the bridge will be completed by 1976. I am delighted to tell the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) that in a year or two they will be extended to Immingham and Grimsby.
The Sheffield-Manchester road has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members on both sides. The feasibility study was carried out for the Department of the Environment by the West Riding County Council. We are considering that report. I promise that a statement will be made on this scheme before the recess.
The M1 south of Leeds, the Pudsey-Dishforth route, has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members on both sides. A trunk road proposal, I expect, will be announced by my Department in August or September.
Other proposals include the Bradford-Skipton road which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall). I am sorry to disappoint her but I cannot yet give a firm date when we shall be making announce-

ments on this proposal. Considerable and difficult environmental problems are involved, as anyone who knows the Aire Valley appreciates.

Mr. James Ramsden: While the Under-Secretary is giving welcome news of future road improvements, could he say whether it is planned to widen the A1 through York? This could have relevance to the Pudsey-Dishforth route. The A1 is already considerably overloaded with the existing traffic.

Mr. Speed: That is one of the factors which we have to take into account in considering the route. There are various alternatives open to us. I hope that the route will be made clear at a later stage.
The A64 Leeds-York road is to be dualled for its whole length. There will be a bypass of York to the south and east of the city. I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) that bypasses of Beverley, Market Weighton, Selby and Ilkley, among others, are now planned. I hope that they will be getting under way within the next year or so.
Our programme contains a large number of principal road improvements in urban areas. The Leeds part of the inner ring road is complete. The south-east urban motorway is under construction and improvements to the main radial routes to dual carriageway standards are proposed. Work has started on an £8 million scheme to link Sheffield and the West Riding with the M1. This should be completed in two years. The road will extend later into Rotherham. The Sheffield programme includes an inner ring road and the Mosborough Expressway which will lead traffic into the heart of the city from the M1 at Barlborough.
Bradford has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. The motorway linking the M62 and the outer ring road is under construction and will be completed later this year. The link road between Barnsley and Doncaster has also been mentioned. This has been added to the preparation list. It will cost several million pounds when completed.
I now come to housing, which has not been mentioned very much.

Mr. Albert Roberts: The hon. Member has made no mention of the Wetherby


spur, to bypass Woodlesford and Olton. This road is now receiving a tremendous amount of traffic from the M1.

Mr. Speed: I do not have any news for the hon. Gentleman on that matter. I will get in touch with the relevant body and give him an up-to-date account of the situation.
If we are talking about the environment of Yorkshire and Humberside, there is the question of housing. The legacy of the past has resulted in this region having a larger proportion of sub-standard housing than any other area in the country. It is estimated that 10 per cent. of houses in the region are unfit—that is, about 170,000. There are no Government restrictions on the local authority building programme as such. The Housing Finance Bill provisions will give a direct subsidy to a loss made on slum clearance and this is particularly helpful. [Interruption.] This will be particularly helpful and it has been welcomed by some of the local authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it, they might like to listen to it. This will allow local authorities to undertake a much more varied and less intense scheme of redevelopment at a reasonable cost. This is something that all hon. Members interested in slum clearance would welcome.
The improvement of houses, which is very important, is not a substitute but runs in parallel with the slum clearance scheme. Grants of 75 per cent. now being paid have been extended to mid-1974. In the region private owners took advantage of these improvement grants to the tune of 12,000 in 1970, 14,500 in 1971, and on present progress we expect they will be considerably higher this year.
The modernisation of council houses shows a similar dramatic improvement. There were 3,500 in 1970, 5,500 in 1971, and we expect about 12,000 this year.
General improvement areas, again of critical importance in some of these cities and towns in Yorkshire, have been going extremely well. Environmental grants are now half of up to £200 per house. There have been 47 areas declared in the region covering 15,000 houses. We are encouraging the local authorities to

do more. My Department is able and willing to help in any way.
Bradford, which has been mentioned particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), has done very well with five areas, including the largest in the country.
Dereliction of land has been mentioned. Undoubtedly all dereliction inhibits investment and reduces the quality of life for the people living there. It also scars much of the very beautiful countryside of Yorkshire. Various suggestions have been made about what we can do regarding derelictland. Local authorities and the Government, in partnership, are doing a great deal. At the end of 1970 12,400 acres were identified in the region as derelict, and the local authorities consider that 9,000 acres justify treatment. Already116 schemes have been approved covering 1,250 acres. An important point is that a considerable amount of this area will be used for industry, housing and agriculture, therefore turning it to most valuable use.

Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to make a statement about the town docks system in Hull and the delay the corporation has suffered at the hands of the Government in getting a decision?

Mr. Speed: No. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me I will write to him about it. In fact, I will make a note of the point and write to him about it.
The special environmental assistance scheme, Operation Eye-sore, introduced only a few months ago, has been going extremely well. Only two days after joining the Department I went to Leeds to see the excellent progress which is being made there. Many small but important unsightly blemishes are being removed. These schemes also help the employment situation. There are 800 schemes under way in the region, at an approximate cost of £1·3 million, and many more in the pipeline. This is an area in which the local authorities and the Government, again in partnership, are effecting a dramatic improvement.
The economic regeneration of South Yorkshire was mentioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite. A regional strategy, prepared by the Regional Economic Planning Council, has been broadly endorsed


by the Government. The Regional Council has advised that efforts should be concentrated for industrial growth on four or five zones in the coalfield. These sites have been selected by the planning authorities. Five sites have been put forward and three so far have been accepted: Carlton Road, Barnsley, 100 acres; one near Doncaster, 400 acres; and Hellaby, Rotherham, 200 acres. In addition to these major schemes—others are underconsideration—local authorities have a lengthy list of smaller sites suitable for industry which they bring to the notice of developers.
The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) asked about recycling and using waste and possibly building extractive plants. Recycling and reclamation depend on finding a market for the product at a reasonable price. I was in Gateshead last week. Gateshead has a tip for chemical waste which it has sold back to the chemical manufacturers, thereby making a profit for the local authority. The Department of Trade and Industry's regional office will pay special attention to recycling in the context of selective assistance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) asked about local government reorganisation. I would rather not stray on to that topic. Selby Bridge will continue as a toll bridge under its private Act, which I understand dates back to the eighteenth century.
Both my hon. Friends the Members for Howden and Bradford, West mentioned the important question of retraining. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden was instrumental in doing much in this sphere for the country as a whole as well as for Yorkshire. There are 850 training places at Government training centres in the region, 200 new training places at Bradford to be provided by 1975 and 450 additional new places to be provided within the same time scale at other places.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), who could not take part in the debate, has asked me to investigate the possible reopening of three mills in his constituency for industrial use. I have promised the hon. Gentleman that I will consider the position of these mills, which have been closed for some time, and contact him.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Spence) questioned whether small firms advice bureaux will replace industrial liaison and office services. This matter is under consideration by my right hon. Friend and announcements will be made in due course.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) raised questions about the yarn position. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he was in Japan recently, urged on the Japanese Government the need for orderly marketing both in yarn and other matters
The question of the rating of pitheads has been mentioned. I will look at this but I cannot hold out much hope. Spoil and waste from pits is being used. We have used a considerable section on M62 between Lofthouse and Ferrybridge. This is the sort of approach that my Department wishes to pursue.
On the question of grants to stop pollution, undoubtedly the consumer will have to pay for the cost of tackling pollution. I am doubtful about whether this is the best way.
I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) about the wool textile industry. His arguments were effectively dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. There is substantial industrial development going ahead in the south of Bradford on the Euroway scheme. At the same time in Bradford British Railways has an international freight depot underway at Low Moor. With the completion of the M62 the future for Bradford in particular is very bright.
The question of offices was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). Today's Financial Timesshows that Leeds is now the fourth most important office centre after Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, outside London. It is growing in the use of office space at about 250,000 sq. ft. a year and has just under 5 million sq. ft. of office space.
The regional airport has been mentioned by many hon. Members. The major local authorities in the region have in commission a study by consultants. They are studying this report in con-


junction with the Civil Aviation Authority. It is for the Yorkshire authorities to decide in the first place whether they wish to follow up the consultants' conclusions or, indeed, bring forward their own conclusions. It is possible, whatever proposal they make, that my Department will be called upon at the end of a planning inquiry to adjudicate upon the matter. I can say no more about it at the moment.

Mr. Ben Ford: Will the Under-Secretary have it clearly in his mind beyond peradventure that, if there is no regional airport off the ground by 1975 and if there is no extension of the Leeds-Bradford airport at that time, there will be no scheduled services for the region?

Mr. Speed: I note the hon. Gentleman's comment. I have no doubt that all the comments which have been made in this debate will be noted by the local authorities in the region.
Apart from derogatory comments by some hon. Members opposite, little has been heard today on the question of company profitability. In view of the whole question of our regional policy, the most serious indictment of the Opposition is that by destroying profitability in their period of government they did more to hamper regional development than any other action they took.

What is needed in regional development are profitable companies paying good wages and reasonable dividends. If that message cannot get through to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, they still have an incredible amount to learn.

As my right hon. Friend has said, the new range of major regional incentives, the new developments of first-class communications by road, rail and sea, massive resources for improving the quality of life, improving old houses—[Interruption.] The comprehensive approach of our policies will assist Yorkshire and Humberside and improve the quality of life and jobs in a way that has never been done before.

The debate has been much better than the Motion in the name of the Opposition, which is a form of introverted guilt complex. The Motion is a form of words which, like so much of their thinking, is irrelevant to a solution of these problems and ignorant of the progress we are making in partnership with the people of Yorkshire. I invite the House to dismiss the Motion and accept the Governments Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 270.

Division No. 225.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul
Drayson, G. B.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bullus, Sir Eric
Eden, Sir John


Astor, John
Burden, F. A.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Atkins, Humphrey
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Awdry, Daniel
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Emery, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Farr, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Chapman, Sydney
Fell, Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fidler, Michael


Bell, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Benyon, W.
Cockeram, Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cooke, Robert
Fortescue, Tim


Biffen, John
Coombs, Derek
Foster, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper, A. E.
Fowler, Norman


Blaker, Peter
Cordle, John
Fox, Marcus


Boardman, Tom (Leicestor S.W.)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Fry, Peter


Boscawen, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Gardner, Edward


Bowden, Andrew
Crowder, F. P
Gibson-Watt, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bray, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brewis, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dean, Paul
Goodhart, Philip


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Goodhew, Victor


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dixon, Piers
Gorst, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gower, Raymond




Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gray, Hamish
MacArthur, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Green, Alan
McCrindle, R. A.
Rost, Peter


Grieve, Percy
McLaren, Martin
Royle, Anthony


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Grylls, Michael
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gummer, J. Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Scott, Nicholas


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maddan, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Madel, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil
Simeons, Charles


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mather, Carol
Sinclair, Sir George


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Soref, Harold


Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Havers, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Spence, John


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Sproat, Iain


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Stainton, Keith


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Higgins, Terence L.
Money, Ernle
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hiley, Joseph
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monro, Hector
Stokes, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper
Sutcliffe, John


Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tapsell, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Mudd, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Hunt, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Iremonger, T. L.
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nott, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


James, David
Onslow, Cranley
Tilney, John


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Osborn, John
Trew, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)



Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Jopling, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Peel, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Peyton, Rt. Hn, John
Waddington, David


Kershaw, Anthony
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wall, Patrick


Kinsey, J. R.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walters, Dennis


Kirk, Peter
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Ward, Dame Irene


Kitson, Timothy
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Warren, Kenneth


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Lambton, Lord
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wiggin, Jerry


Lamont, Norman
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Lane, David
Redmond, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Woodnutt, Mark


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Loveridge, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Walters Clegg.


Luce, R. N.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Albu, Austen
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Allen, Scholefield
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Ashley, Jack
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cant, R. B.


Ashton, Joe
Booth, Albert
Carmichael, Neil


Atkinson, Norman
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Barnes, Michael
Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Brown, Bob (N'e'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)







Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Concannon, J. D.
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pentland, Norman


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prescott, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rankin, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Richard, Ivor


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamond, James
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dempsey, James
Latham, Arthur
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dormand, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roper, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leonard, Dick
Rose, Paul B.


Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rowlands, Ted


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sandelson, Neville


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edelman, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sillars, James


Ellis, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


English, Michael
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Ewing, Harry
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Foot, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strang, Gavin


Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)
Swain, Thomas


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marsden, F.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Golding, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mayhew, Christopher
Tinn, James


Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Torney, Tom


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mendelson, John
Tuck, Raphael


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Milne, Edward
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hamling, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Marybill)
Molloy, William
Wallace, George


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, David


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hilton, W. S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Horam, John
Murray, Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas



Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Janner, Greville
Padley, Walter
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
Mr Walter Harrison.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 270.

Division No. 226.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Le Merchant, Spencer


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Foster, Sir John
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Astor, John
Fowler, Norman
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fox, Marcus
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Loveridge, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fry, Peter
Luce, R. N.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
Maddan, Martin


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Madel, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Green, Alan
Mather, Carol


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bowden, Andrew
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bray, Ronald
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Miscampbell, Norman


Brewis, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Money, Ernles


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper


Bullus, Sir Eric
Havers, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Burden, F. A.
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Charles


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Heseltine, Michael
Mudd, David


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Murton, Oscar


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Chapman, Sydney
Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip
Normanton, Tom


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Nott, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Cockeram, Eric
Hornby, Richard
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cooke, Robert
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Osborn, John


Coombs, Derek
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cooper, A. E.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Cordle, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peel, John


Critchley, Julian
Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian


Crouch, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Crowder, F. P.
James, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith. G. (E. Grinstead)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dixon, Piers
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Eden, Sir John
Kimball, Marcus
Redmond, Robert


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Emery, Peter
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fell, Anthony
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fidler, Michael
Lambton, Lord
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lane, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)




Rost, Peter
Stokes, John
Waddington, David


Royle, Anthony
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Sutcliffe, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tapsell, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wall, Patrick


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Walters, Dennis


Sharples, Richard
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Warren, Kenneth


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tebbit, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Simeons, Charles
Temple, John M.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Sinclair, Sir George
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Winterton, Nicholas


Soref, Harold
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Speed, Keith
Tilney, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Spence, John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Sproat, Iain
Trew, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stainton, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher



Stanbrook, Ivor
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
van Straubenzee, W. R
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M
Vickers, Dame Joan





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dormand, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Albu, Austen
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E)
John, Brynmor


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Driberg, Tom
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Ashley, Jack
Dunn, James A.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Ashton, Joe
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edelman, Maurice
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edwards, William (Merloneth)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ellis, Tom
Judd, Frank


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
English, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Bennett, James (Glasgow,Bridgeton)
Evans, Fred
Kelley, Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry
Kerr, Russell


Bishop, E. S.
Faulds, Andrew
Kinnock, Neil


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lambie, David


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lamborn, Harry


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lamond, James


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Latham, Arthur


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Foot, Michael
Lawson, George


Bradley, Tom
Ford, Ben
Leadbitter, Ted


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Forrester, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leonard, Dick


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Golding, John
Lipton, Marcus


Cant, R. B.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C
Lomas, Kenneth


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
Loughlin, Charles




Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McBride, Neil


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McCartney, Hugh


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McElhone, Frank


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McGuire, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Hamling, William
Mackenzie, Gregor


Concannon, J. D.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackie, John


Conlan, Bernard
Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Maclennan, Robert


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hattersley, Roy
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cronin, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hilton, W. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Horam, John
Marks, Kenneth


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsden, F.



Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Dalyell, Tam
Huckfield, Leslie
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mendelson, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hunter, Adam
Mikardo, Ian


Deakins, Eric
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Millan, Bruce


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Janner, Greville
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward


Dempsey, James
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Mitchell, R.C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Molloy, William







Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Richard, Ivor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Moyle, Roland
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tinn, James


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank


Murray, Ronald King
Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Torney, Tom


Oakes, Gordon
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tuck, Raphael


Ogden, Eric
Roper, John
Urwin, T. W.


O'Halloran, Michael
Rose, Paul B.
Varley, Eric G.


O'Malley, Brian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wainwright, Edwin


Oram, Bert
Rowlands, Ted
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Orbach, Maurice
Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orme, Stanley
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wallace, George


Oswald, Thomas
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, David


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Weitzman, David


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wellbeloved, James


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Sillars, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silverman, Julius
Whitehead, Phillip


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Pavitt, Laurie
Small, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pentland, Norman
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Perry, Ernest G.
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Prescott, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Woof, Robert


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John



Price, William (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Probert, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Rankin, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
 Mr. Walter Harrison.


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Swain, Thomas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the decision of Her Majesty's Government to make the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside an intermediate area, the introduction of cash grants towards

capital expenditure on buildings, the expansion of the road building programme, and in particular the Humber Bridge scheme; and endorses the Government's measure to obtain a sustained and faster growth rate in the economy and so bring permanent improvements in employment and living standards throughout Britain.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Motions relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS (GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION)

10.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I beg to move,
That the Housing Associations (Increased Contributions) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.
This order has been made under section 22 of the Housing Act, 1969, which gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State power to vary, among other things, the Government contribution paid under Section 21 of that Act in respect of dwellings provided or improved by housing associations acting under arrangements with local authorities.
The Government contribution at present consists of an annual payment, made for 20 years, equal to three-quarters of the loan charges on the "allowable cost". The "allowable cost" is half the total approved expense of acquisition and works, subject to certain limits. 
The purpose of the order is to increase the percentage rate of the annual contribution under Section 21(7) of the 1969 Act from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. Putting it another way, this means that the Government contribution will in future consist of half the total approved expense of a scheme, within limits, instead of only three-eighths.
The voluntary housing movement holds a distinctive place in the Government's housing policy. It can and does make a special contribution to meeting people's housing needs. From the outset the present Government have sought to encourage the voluntary movement, and this measure provides further evidence of our continuing support.
During the various consultations which took place during the preparation of the Housing Finance Bill and subsequently, the voluntary housing

associations expressed tears about the Bill's effect on their finances, especially the provision which from 1st January, 1973, brings housing association tenancies—but not the members of co-ownership associations—within the fair rent provisions of the Rent Act, 1968. Housing associations represented that this would lead to a decrease in their rent income since the rents now normally charged for converted or improved dwellings are higher than fair rents are likely to be. It was said that the result of restricting new tenancies to fair rents would be that many housing associations would not be able to undertake any new schemes of conversion or improvement.
Clearly this was not a situation which should be allowed to arise and, accordingly, an undertaking was given during the 48th sitting of the Standing Committee on the Housing Finance Bill on the afternoon of 16th March, 1972, by my predecessor that a draft order to increase the rate of Government contribution would be laid after the Housing Finance Bill had received its Third Reading in the House of Commons.
The Third Reading of the Bill took place on 8th May and the order was duly laid on 16th May. This order will apply to contributions made in pursuance of arrangements made between housing associations and local authorities after 31st July this year. This will be well in advance of 1st January, 1973, the date on which the fair rent provisions should begin to apply to housing associations.
The local authority associations, which were of course consulted before the draft order was laid, generally welcomed this proposal, and representatives of the voluntary housing movement have also welcomed the Government's action.
Perhaps I should add a word of explanation about the position as it affects the development and intermediate areas. The House will recall that under the Housing Act, 1971, housing associations operating within the development and intermediate areas receive contributions amounting to three-quarters of the approved expense of improvement or conversion schemes, provided that the works are completed before 23rd June, 1973. Subsequently we have announced our intention to introduce legislation in due course to extend this period for a further


year until 23rd June, 1974. But the higher rates of grant in the assisted areas are not affected by the order now under consideration, which specifically excludes cases to which the 1971 Act applies. I hope that makes the position clear.
Finally, it might assist the House if I were to give a more concrete example of what the new arrangements will mean in a particular case. In greater London the housing associations have a specially determined limit of £5,000 on the approved expense of improvement schemes. The existing annual contribution towards this limit is about £200. The increase in the rate of Government contribution made by this order will give an extra cash subsidy of about £66 a year for each dwelling in this kind of case.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome this further substantial incentive to the work of housing associations, and on that basis I recommend the order to the House.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: We welcome the order, but we cannot leave it at that because we have to consider the situation which has given rise to it and also because the problems of that situation will not be solved by the order.
The Minister gave a rather euphemistic description of the theme of the discussions between housing associations and the Government about the position that could arise following the Housing Finance Bill's becoming law. I followed what was going on as closely as I could without being privy to the detailed discussions. My personal contact with housing associations goes back quite a long time, certainly before I came to the House, and in my view the theme was somewhat different because this situation would have arisen even had there not been a Housing Finance Bill.
The position is not so much that the imposition of so-called fair rents would bring rent levels below the cost of providing the dwellings and therefore action had to be taken. One should really put the reverse description on it. Costs have been rising so rapidly, particularly in the already high-cost stress areas such as inner London, that it has become inevit-

able that there should be increased assistance from the Exchequer towards the work of housing associations in improvements and conversions of old houses into flats. The increased assistance is necessary to enable housing associations to continue with their work. The position is as serious as that, and I am not exaggerating.
The increase, welcome and marked though it is, is already being overtaken by events. The order will provide about a 25 per cent. increase in Government assistance on existing levels of help, but property prices in London are rising at a rate of at least 30 per cent. per year. This is particularly true in the inner London area where we are most concerned with this kind of work. That is the rate of increase before the improvement and conversion work is undertaken.
My main point is that we start from a position of soaring house prices and of land which is unprecedented. One can always say that prices are unprecedented, but it is the rate of increase that is unprecedented. Its like has not been seen before in this century. The prices of existing properties—I am not talking about houses being built—are running at about double what they were in 1969. In the stress area of London, the rate of increase is far higher. In just such an old Victorian area, Queen's Park in my constituency, large Victorian houses which were sold in 1969 for £9,000—just the type of houses concerned in this field of housing association work—are being reinsured on professional advice for £20,000.
Although we are concerned with properties which will eventually be redeveloped by housing associations, the cost of land is not central to the issue. But it is as well to bear in mind that the land cost element rose by about 65 per cent.—more in some areas—between the end of 1970 and the end of 1971 or the beginning of this year. That is one of the major factors in the rising costs.
Housing associations are at serious risk of being priced out of the market. Only this evening I was speaking to an hon. Member about another matter and he mentioned that a mutual acquaintance of ours had become a consultant and manager for a worthwhile housing association in London, which I know personally. Having got the whole thing


organised earlier this year, they could not get the properties. I invited them to tour my district because I wanted to see them active there. They had to opt out: they did not undertake one project there because of the cost. I understand that they are having the same experience elsewhere in inner London this year.
Either the total cost of purchasing the property and then improving or converting it exceeds the limits laid down by the Government or it exceeds the limits laid down by the local authorities which lend the money, usually in line with Government subsidy limits. On the other hand the rents which are likely to be produced are too high on the feasibility study, so they have to opt out. They are being caught increasingly between these two aspects of the situation.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Does the insurance figure of £20,000 mentioned by the hon. Member imply that the property is worth £20,000 on the open market, or is it replacement value, building cost value?

Mr. Freeson: I will have to make the same insurance decision shortly myself although not about a £20,000 property. I understand that this is what would be required to purchase a similar property in the same area. The companies are advising people to keep pace with the market. The figure relates, I understand, to the market cost. This was not unexpected. It is in line with what one has seen taking place in many areas of London and, at different levels, in other parts of the country.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the London Borough of Wandsworth, particularly in South Battersea, houses that housing associations could buy two years ago for £5,000 or £6,000 are now being sold for £17,000?

Mr. Freeson: That does not surprise me in the least. The figures which my hon. Friend mentions are particularly relevant to a specific point which I shall put to the Government shortly.
I was dealing with the two-handed situation in which housing associations are finding themselves. Many associations are saying, perhaps, as I hope, over-despondently, that this year they are

finding it impossible to expand their work or to expand it more than marginally. They are consolidating and concentrating their minds on managerial matters. In itself, that is not wrong. However, it is most unfortunate that this feeling should be growing among an increasing number of associations. I do my best to dissuade them from that feeling because, no matter what the difficulties, there is a task to be done in our inner city areas, and the associations, alongside local authorities, have a part in undertaking it.
Arising from this serious situation, whatever one's views about it, however partisan one may be in one's criticism or defence of Government policy, or capacity or incapacity, one must conclude that more Exchequer and local authority help is necessary along the lines of the order but going beyond it.
I come now to deal with this point. If my figures are a little out of date, no doubt the Under-Secretary will correct me. As I understand it, the price ceiling for the receipt of Exchequer subsidy upon which contributions under the order can be made is, outside London, £2,500 per dwelling. Inside London, until early this year, when there was a revision, the figure was £5,000 per dwelling. For large houses capable of housing families of up to six people, the ceiling is now £6,500. Here my hon. Friend's intervention is relevant. The figure is £5,500 for smaller families' dwellings and £5,000 per flat where there are conversions producing three flats.
There are other details but that is the basic framework within which local authorities are operating, outside and inside London. Those figures bear repeating in the light of the situation which housing associations, like others, are having to face. Outside London the ceiling figure is £2,500. If the property goes above that figure associations will not receive a contribution from the Exchequer and will, presumably, be in serious difficulty with their local authorities as well, in like token. Inside London the figure is £5,000 per flat in cases of conversions to three flats. For individual family dwellings the figures are £5,500 to £6,500. Anything above that figure does not qualify for the contribution.
Will the Under-Secretary, on behalf of the Government, explain to the House


and to the many housing associations and their prospective tenants in need, just how one can get within that kind of figure in the high-cost stress areas of London? How can one find in my area, which is just such a stress area, properties capable of producing this accommodation, modernised with grant aid, with this Exchequer contribution which has a ceiling of £5,500 for an ordinary three-bed roomed family dwelling and £6,500 for a large house? It is rare enough to find properties capable of conversion into three flats at an upper limit of £5,000 per flat in the London area, but how much more difficult will it be in some other parts of the country where the limit of £2,500 still obtains? Where is it expected that housing associations will get properties in the high-cost stress areas within those limits?
Whatever one's views about the background and cause and effect, and what is to be done about the problem, it is obvious that the time has come for something to be done to raise the ceiling figures within which housing associations may qualify for the contributions with which we are dealing. It is an urgent matter, especially if house prices are to continue to increase at the rate of 30 per cent, a year in London with high percentage increases in other parts of the country as well.
I suggest that in connection with this order and the contributions under it, and in connection with the price ceiling to which I have referred, two things must be done. First, there should be an undertaking that there will be an annual review, not simply a review which takes place as a result of pressure building up. It took about 10 months of pressure from the housing associations before action was taken by the Government this year.
There are special problems within the high-cost stress areas of our cities where a complex of factors makes it particularly difficult and expensive to undertake conversion and improvement work. We can think of North Kensington, areas of Paddington and certain other pocket areas. They are not such small pockets, but they are areas within the general stress area in London and they have their equivalents in other cities. Serious thought should be given to treating these areas as special areas. This might well

marry up with ideas about designated stress areas which have been mooted from time to time in connection with other Government services.
We welcome the increase provided in the order. It is necessary. It will be helpful, but there are other financial factors which must be mentioned. I have referred to the ceiling on the cost of buying. This price ceiling is far too low. It is taken as a guide by very many local authorities—I do not know how many but I think the majority—for fixing loan ceilings. If the Government lay down a ceiling of £6,500 for a large family dwelling according to which housing associations may qualify for the contributions, there is a tendency for a large number of local authorities to fix their loan ceilings accordingly.
Example and advice need to be given by the Government. The Government should set an example by increasing the ceiling in the order and they should advise local authorities which operate this kind of restriction to bring themselves into line with the new ceiling.
The important thing is the underlying situation on prices. Whatever the Government do, whether they extend their help along the lines I have suggested or not, they will not tackle the basic problem which faces housing associations, local authorities, moderate income earners in the private rented sector and the moderate income earners who desire to be owner-occupiers in these areas.
I cannot bore the House with the details of the increasing number of reports I have been getting, as other hon. Members must have done, about professional people who, through their agencies, their trade unions, their business houses, their factories and their managements are getting into touch with local authorities asking for special help for housing because they can no longer afford to buy the housing which they could have afforded a year or two ago. They face the same kind of problem as do the housing associations, as is reflected in the increased benefits under the order.
The time will come when the Government must take action on a number of fronts. I select only one for the purposes of our discussion, because the discussion would range too wide if I went beyond it. A ceiling will have to be considered on the price of properties bought by


developers for modernisation and improvement with the benefit of public funds. I could go into some detail about how such a scheme should work, and I have done so elsewhere. Sooner or later if ordinary people, and housing associations in particular, are not to be driven out of the very areas of our cities where it is most important that housing associations, along with local authorities, should be operating on a much bigger scale, a ceiling will have to be applied to these properties, particularly where public funds have been involved. In the inner parts of our cities properties are increasingly being bought up by speculative developers, converted with the aid of considerable public funds and then sold at a profit of anything from 100 per cent. to 300 per cent.
I am not exaggerating; I know of such cases. I know of properties bought for £3,000 to £4,000 two or three years ago being converted into four or five flats, which have been sold for between £5,000 and £12,000 apiece. They are not exceptional cases and they are growing in number. Everybody involved knows that this is going on, and something must be done about it because it is driving the housing associations out of this field of work.
Both housing associations and local authorities, working together, must have Government backing to expand their activities in a programmed way equal to an increased new building programme. These areas must be held as areas of housing for reasonable income earners of all classes. I am not speaking now of just the poorest people. People of a range of incomes are being driven out of such areas by the excessive costs which have led to the increased help given in the order. We welcome the order as we welcomed the Act, introduced by the last Labour Government, that gave rise to it. But it is only a palliative. We must take further steps along the lines I have suggested, and beyond them, although I will not range any further tonight

10.52 p.m.

Mr. W. Benyon: I do not want to be drawn into a general debate on housing along the lines the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) mentioned. I agree with him in certain respects on the problem he posed, but it would take a far longer

time than I have available to me to go into its various aspects.
The order essentially increases Government finance for housing associations and therefore it is to be welcomed. It redeems a pledge made during the Committee stage of the Housing Finance Bill. I pay tribute to the assistance the Government have given to the voluntary housing movement, which is greatly appreciated.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he would like to see the voluntary housing movement expand in the way that the building society movement has expanded over the past 50 years. But if the finance for the movement is to be dependent on local authorities and therefore to a certain extent at the whim of the district valuer, progress will inevitably be slow. It is essential to attract to the movement private investment. I believe there are large sums available if only we can get some sort of Government guarantee for such investment. Underwriting of that kind has been carried out most successfully in both the United States and Sweden. In the United States in particular—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not stray too far from the terms of the Motion by suggesting other things. We must keep strictly to its terms, as did the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), and discuss the amount of the contribution. Passing references to other things are in order but they should not be developed.

Mr. Benyon: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was seeking to show that perhaps not quite so much finance would be needed if the kind of measures I suggest were carried out.
In neither country that I have mentioned have the Government guarantees been invoked by any lender, and in each country the Government have made considerable profits from the underwriting. There are precedents in this country, such as the export credits guarantees and the Home Office guarantees for the building of approved schools. What is essential is that the voluntary housing movement should play its part in increasing the capital formation in housing in this country. I think all hon. Members will agree that overall this has been low in the


United Kingdom as a percentage of the gross national product. The order is a step in that direction.
If the low-cost rented sector is to be the exclusive preserve of the local authority and housing associations, it is absolutely essential that we get greater finance into the movement from other sources. To do that there has to be some sort of over-seeing body. I suggest that the Housing Corporation is such a body. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will take this point and perhaps seek to call a conference of the voluntary housing movement at which these additional sources of finance can be investigated.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I welcome the proposals in this Statutory Instrument. However, is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary satisfied with the organisation that we see for housing societies and housing associations? Is he happy with the working of the arrangements with the multitude of organisations which undertake this vital improvement? Are those organisations in a position to make the best use of the funds which are being made available to them?
I was a member of the Cohen Committee which considered the organisation of housing societies and associations. Unfortunately that committee was appointed in 1968 and did not have an opportunity to finalise its investigations and prepare a report.
Clearly there is tremendous fragmentation in what is generally termed the third arm of housing. I agree with the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) that we should do everything possible to help the many people who voluntarily engage in this work. On the one hand there are the housing associations. More or less anybody can get together with others and form a housing association; there are no statutory requirements. As long as it is non-profit making, any group of people is entitled to set itself up and call itself a housing association.
On the other hand, a housing society needs to be registered with the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965. I am told that there are no less than eight different types of model rules for

societies, two published by the Housing Corporation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has referred, and six by the National Federation of Housing Societies. It is to that body that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham was referring. That is where co-ordination of the activities of housing societies should lie. I agree that we need to look at ways and means by which the present arrangements can be improved, so that the best possible use is made of public moneys used by housing associations and societies.
Substantial sums of money are involved. This was made clear to us by Mr. Waddilove, the Chairman of the National Federation of Housing Societies, who is himself a strong advocate for a measure of co-ordination and the bringing of order into what is a very confusing situation for those of us who have some familiarity with these organisations, but is even more confusing for the public.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but he is going a little far from the order. I am sorry to disappoint him. I have been as tolerant as I can, but I must have regard to the order.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Greater London Council is providing £125 million to housing associations and societies over a five-year period from 1970 to 1975. It expects, if this money were utilised—this is one of the problems which the Government face—to provide 25,000 houses for which nominations by the GLC would total 14,000. If ways and means can be found to stimulate and encourage the work of housing associations and societies, significant help can be given to the housing programme. I recognise that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would find great difficulty with the legislative programme to try to make any progress in this sector, but perhaps I may have an assurance that it is in the Government's mind.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will warmly acknowledge the valuable work that housing associations do throughout the country. Certainly, as my hon. Friend the


Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) said, those of us who represent inner London constituencies, where unfortunately the recurring problem we face is housing, readily acknowledge that, together with local authorities, the work of housing associations offers opportunities to people to be rehoused in decent accommodation. The class of person involved is unable to look with any hope at the kind of property sales advertised in local and, indeed, national newspapers where prices of £20,000-plus are being asked.
I realise the limited scope of the debate, but if we wish to see the work of housing associations continue we cannot see it in isolation against the unfortunate things that are taking place certainly in inner London and in many other parts of the country where that work is being hampered by the abuse of property speculators concerning improvement grants.
If a housing association wishes to buy a property, there is a limit to which it can go in the amount it is prepared to pay. Unfortunately, this is not generally so with someone who sees an empty property, realises that he will be able to get substantial public moneys to make improvements and shortly afterwards sell it at a handsome profit. Housing associations are not in being to do that. However, because this is allowed they face great hardship in buying suitable properties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) pointed out in an intervention that in his part of the London Borough of Wandsworth—certainly it also happens in my part of the borough—because of the abuse of housing improvement grants which is taking place, properties which a housing association would normally be able to buy are now beyond its reach because of the price which is asked. Therefore scarce accommodation in inner London, which could be made available to people in genuine housing need, is being bought up, improved at public expense and then sold at a handsome profit. It goes to help not those in need, but those with no financial or housing problems, because those with financial resources have no housing problems.
Because of the abuse of the house improvement grant provisions, there is a

lack of opportunity for housing associations in inner London. The Government cannot, if they have a genuine desire to extend the scope of opportunity of housing associations, close their eyes to the abuses.
The Minister for Housing and Construction says glibly that houses thus improved help to solve the housing problem. Those of us from constituencies where the main problem is trying to find decent living accommodation for people derive no comfort in hearing the Minister say that. There are many hon. Members on both sides making valiant efforts to help constituents living in deplorable accommodation and bringing up families in great hardship.
We in Parliament, together with local authorities, want to encourage the work of housing associations. The Government can count on the support of this side of the House if they make efforts to stamp out the abuses which occur in London and elsewhere, where property speculators to whom money is no object and who can pay whatever price is asked use public money to improve property.
Unless the Government stamp out the abuses, the policy as outlined in the order is doomed to failure. I do not want the policy to fail. Unless the Government tackle the abuses there will be a continuation of the appalling hardships that decent, hard-working people in London and elsewhere must suffer.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. I acknowledge the special problems that housing associations have because of the price boom. The hon. Gentleman surely is not suggesting that these "abuses"—that word was used by him, not me—began in June, 1970. They existed prior to that date and were quite common under the Labour Government. Nothing was done by the Labour Government to end these abuses. That is not to say that nothing should be done now. The hon. Gentleman would not wish to pretend that this is simply a phenomenon of the present Government.

Mr. Cox: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, because of the constituency he represents, has the same problems that my constituency has. It is only in the last year or 18 months that house prices


have rocketed. Land and property speculators have moved into the hon. Member's area and into mine. They are able to do this largely because they know of the substantial sums of public money they will get and of the quick profit available. I condemn such people. This is why I want Government action. These speculators have no interest in helping to rehouse people in genuine housing need. This is what we should tackle.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: At this hour I shall be brief. I have enjoyed this important debate but I was a little disappointed that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, cogently though he spoke on the subject of the money that is to be granted, did not also give us some background—I hope he will do so in replying—of the progress made by housing associations in general and the difficulties which they face, which are remarkable and, I believe, abnormal. I hope that my hon. Friend will fill in that background.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), in whose speech I was most interested and with much of which I agree, speaks as a Member for Willesden and I understand that. But he also speaks, I presume, for the Opposition in a much wider sense, and I confess that I was also a little disappointed that he, like everyone else who has taken part in the debate, dealt almost exclusively with city problems. One would suppose that housing problems were confined to London. If I say nothing else tonight, I hope I may remove that impression. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to speak in a national context, as I am sure he would like to do—and we should listen to him with respect—I hope he will make his remarks wider and realise that there are people living in the countryside who have their problems.
I am desperately concerned about those who live in rural Dorset, but, of course, their problems can be found in any other part of rural England as well. In every housing debate I find few words spoken about their problems. I appeal to the Government to put in a word from time to time about the people who do not live in the big cities. I think I am

right in saying that 30 per cent. of building society advances go to those earning £30 a week or less, which is below the average wage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too far from the terms of the order. We are discussing the amount. It is in order to debate the amount of the increase but not to traverse the whole policy of Government contributions, otherwise we shall find ourselves in the middle of a wide-ranging housing debate.

Mr. King: I was about to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those to whom I refer, the poorest section of the community, are in need of this grant which is about to be made. I hope that that at any rate is in order. I hope that any additional grant which is made will be related to financial need, because the financial need, as the hon. Member for Willesden, East pointed out, in the context of rising prices clearly has immensely changed and is changing almost every month.
What also bothers me about the rural scene is the lack of land. If the grant is to be increased, I hope my hon. Friend will ensure that it can be efficiently used. It can be efficiently used only if sufficient land is made available. I hope that at the same time—I know that the Department is already making grants to local authorities for the assembly of land—it might be possible for local authorities to assemble land specifically allocated to housing associations. If that were done, this grant would be even more efficiently used.
I conclude, having sought to make only that one point, with the hope that the needs of those who live in the countryside will be treated no less urgently than the needs of those who live in our towns.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on this welcome news. During the proceedings in Committee on the Housing Finance Bill we were lobbied by housing associations expressing anxiety that the rents of newly acquired modernised older properties would be limited by the Bill.
The limited nature of the debate precludes my answering the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) who has a cut-and-dried scheme for imposing a ceiling on the price of properties.
The criticisms which have been made of improvement grants are unwarranted. The grants have served a useful purpose in enabling many houses in disrepair once again to be made habitable. Admittedly the rents are open to exploitation. When I was chairman of the housing committee in Southampton I was surprised that the Labour Government, in introducing improvement grants, made them open-ended. I was afraid that developers, in the days when finance was strictly limited, would take advantage of the scheme to such an extent that landlords and owner-occupiers might not be able to get the finance they required. Since then there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of money available, and the order represents an important step forward which will be very much welcomed by the rural and suburban areas.
It has been said that housing associations are not always run with the management expertise that is desirable. There should perhaps be a tightening up of the rules so that housing associations cannot be started up by any Tom, Dick or Harry. I am sure my hon. Friend will look into this.
In my area housing associations have greatly helped with rehousing especially of the older people, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the order.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) for his kind words in welcoming the order. I am afraid I cannot follow him in detail in his remarks about the fever of demand for home ownership. It is due in part to increased confidence in the availability of credit, which has not been so readily available in the recent past. The fever of demand has become overheated, and I advise individuals if they can to postpone a decision about the purchase of property until the autumn as there is evidence that there is a prospect of the market stabilising.
The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) referred to

tenants being dispossessed. I hope he will join me in doing everything possible to explain to tenants the great degree of protection that is available to them. The housing advice centres in London are doing good work in making this clear to tenants. On occasion tenants are possibly induced by financial offers to vacate their tenancies. If they make the decision to do so on economic grounds, that is a matter for their judgment. It is important that we should all support the work that the housing advice centres are doing to make the safeguards clear to tenants.

Mr. Thomas Cox: During the passage through the House of the Criminal Justice Bill the Government accepted an Amendment to increase the penalties for harassment. What publicity do the Government intend to give to this measure, which generally is unknown to the vast majority of tenants?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Government cannot give publicity to the effects of the Criminal Justice Bill until it becomes an Act, but great efforts will then be made to draw it to the attention of the public; I am sure that the housing advisory centres and Members of Parliament will help in that regard.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East expressed concern about housing problems in London and other heavily populated centres. I share his concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) pointed out, these problems have existed for a considerable time. As we examine the total policies which have been developed, we are at least within sight of developing measures to enable us to cope with a great number of these serious problems.
The hon. Gentleman then questioned the adequacy of existing cost limits on which contributions to housing associations are based. This is a question that is understandably causing the voluntary housing movement a great deal of concern. It is based on the proposition that the rise in the cost of buying property and the carrying out of conversion work has made present limits unrealistic. It is an entirely different question from the one which we are now considering strictly within the terms of the order, which deals


with the rate of contribution and not with ceiling figures.
In regard to greater London the general cost limit of £5,000is double that for the rest of the country outside the assisted areas, except in the case of Birmingham. Even higher limits in London have been fixed to encourage the provision of dwellings of a suitable size for families. I will refer to this aspect in more detail a little later.
The level of costs in London is now being actively considered. Only this afternoon I had a useful meeting and discussed this problem with a number of representatives from the housing association movement. The Department's London Standing Working Party on Housing, on which is represented the Department, the Greater London Council, the London boroughs and the housing associations operating in London, is at present looking at the case for increasing the limits in greater London. I could not anticipate any conclusions at which the working party may arrive. I can only say that I expect it to reach them soon and they will be carefully considered. I know there is concern about the difficulties of housing associations operating in the South East and other areas in the vicinity of London.

Mr. Freeson: Why is it not possible for the Government to do what some local authorities do; namely, not use a preconceived figure, but consider policies based on the viability of a housing scheme put forward by a housing association? Is much consideration needed to show that in the inner areas of London, and at different levels in other cities, costs have far exceeded, and will continue to exceed, the kind of figures now applied by the Government?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman's point about local authorities is a matter for local decision. There is also concern about housing associations operating in the South East and other areas in the vicinity of London. The possibility of increasing the cost limits will depend a great deal on what is done for London itself.
In the development and intermediate areas my impression is that housing associations are in the main content with the existing cost limits, at least for the dura-

tion of the operation of the Housing Act, 1971, though there are limited areas of special difficulty which again will have to be considered. In other areas the Department is always ready to consider cases for increasing limits where it has become evident that housing associations are unable to operate within the existing ceiling.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) for his remarks in support of the order. My hon. Friend spoke about the whim of the district valuer, but it is a little more than that. It is the exercise of independent professional judgment, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend also asked that consideration should be given to a system of Government guarantees. I shall consider that point. Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have the details which the rules of order prevented his giving me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) referred to the form of organisation at present applying to housing associations and societies. With his experience in these matters, my hon. Friend will know that there are historical reasons for the present differences and, to some extent, anomalies. There is no doubt that clarification is desirable. I am happy to say that this aspect of the work of housing associations and societies is under review. We want the voluntary housing associations to be as effective as possible and, after full consideration, we hope in due course to bring forward proposals to this effect, subject always to the limitation mentioned by my hon. Friend of the availability of legislative time in the House.
In reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), it is clear that the housing associations have made great progress, as the report up to the end of last year shows. The Government intend to see that they will be in a position to continue giving considerable help in dealing with housing problems. The Government are realistic and firm in this intention and they recognise the important contributions which housing associations can make to the solution of housing problems. I appreciate that this applies very much in the rural areas to which my hon. Friend referred.
I repeat that the problems raised by hon. Members and their solution will be given careful consideration. I ought to say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) for his remarks in support of the order.
I conclude by saying that the housing associations welcome the order as a most valuable step forward. It gives me great pleasure to recommend it warmly to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Housing Associations (Increased Contributions) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT INSURANCE SCHEME

Resolved,
That payments made by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of sums that cannot be remitted to the United Kingdom may be treated as sums that can be remitted to or have been received in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Higgins.]

CAPITAL ALLOWANCES (INCOME TAX AND CORPORATION TAX)

Resolved,
That charges to income tax and corporation tax may be imposed by provisions restricting the making of capital allowances.—[Mr. Higgins.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of compensation to or in respect of clerks to General Commissioners whose divisions are affected by orders made (whether before or after the passing of that Act) under section 2(6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970.—[Mr. Higgins.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — ELDERLY PERSONS' PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL AND NURSING HOMES

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On 23rd May I had three Questions before the House concerning the conditions in private nursing and old people's homes. On 25th May I wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Services pointing out my disappointment at his replies. The Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply to this debate, was kind enough to write to me on 16th June in response to my letter, adding that he hoped tonight to clear up any misunderstanding. I appreciate this. I hope, however, that he will not concentrate too much on clearing up misunderstandings.
I concede that there are problems at Question Time or in written replies. I accept that the Minister might not have been fully aware of the magnitude of the problem I wanted to develop had I been able to extend the subject by means of supplementary questions. This, therefore, is the purpose of tonight's debate, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider what I have to say rather than refer too much to the proceedings of 23rd May.
I take for granted that on a subject which is now causing considerable alarm and concern there is no need to criticise the Minister. There is no time in this debate to embark upon that. On the contrary, I am looking for his co-operation on a subject in which we both have a positive interest. I genuinely seek that co-operation.
I also take for granted that there are many well-managed homes providing an excellent service and giving the highest standards of comfort, care and kindness to their residents. I also take for granted that all those responsible for what is best in private nursing and old people's homes would be the first to support any steps that were taken to stamp out the corruption, the indifference, the cruelty, the meanness and, in some cases, the wanton neglect which are the hallmarks of the basically greedy profit-seeker in this business. No less do I condemn homes, however, where there is dirt and the pervading persistent smell of people who are not washed and cared for in


a proper manner. This is the state generally of unqualified management, underpaid staff or even a lack of staffing.
It is not unknown, nevertheless, for poorly-paid staffs to be over-worked and yet set the highest standards in personal sacrifice and dedication. No blame is to be attached to them. Many people have appeared in the Honours Lists for contributions to society which are microscopic compared with their daily toil.
Finally, I take for granted that the 1936 nursing homes legislation, as amended by the Nursing Homes Act, 1963, the Public Health Act, 1936, and the National Assistance Act, 1948, together with the regulations flowing from these as well as the supporting administrative local health committee byelaws, are a formidable set of provisions. Enforcement, however, falls desperately short of intention, and here lies the loop-hole for the slick and the slap-happy homes operator.
According to the News of the World in its published investigation during May this year, 200,000 people over the age of 65 are in homes of one kind or another. There are 5,600 old people's homes. Councils run about 2,614 of these, the remaining 2,986 being privately owned. Surely these figures by themselves point plainly to the need to enforce the law and the regulations flowing from it.
During the last few years there has been an increase in the number of homes, and with this increase growing evidence of profit-seeking and of growing numbers of complaints. That is the more important reason for vigilance and a fresh look at the whole question of care for the old. The News of the World has done a great service in focusing public attention on this area of the matter as well
I have received some considerable correspondence from the Registered Nursing Homes Association, and from discussions that I have had with its officers I am satisfied that the work in establishing a code of standards in this field demonstrates the need to consider its views in the controversial area of private old people's homes where such a code and association influence do not exist.
Since this debate became publicly known I have received a number of letters from a wide range of qualified people. All this information has been documented by myself in a file of 85 pages. I have the file here ready for the Minister, and when I give it to him to night, apart from any other points that I have to make on the subject of enforcement, I expect every home mentioned in this file to be examined and reported upon. I expect every local authority or local health authority in which these homes are registered to be informed by the Minister that action is needed, will be entered upon, and a full report made to him. That is my immediate request to the Minister, and in the light of evidence it is not an unreasonable request.
I want to assure the Minister that residents, nurses, officials and owners have been questioned on the conditions in private old people's homes in the United Kingdom. On public reaction, in the early days of the News of the World investigation about 417 letters were received. Of these 103 praised the homes experienced, but 314 were critical, and many were highly critical.
Let me mention some types of case work. One owner is reported as claiming that a 50 per cent. profit from every resident could be made every week.
All we need
he says
to get into the 25 to 30-guinea class are velvet curtains and new carpets. There are fantastic profits to be made if we go about it correctly. I have maids who do 40 hours for £9 plus dinner. I could double charge residents without paying out a single penny more in wages.
added this lover of aged.
Part of another letter reads:
My mother was locked up with two mental patients. She wasn't even allowed to the lavatory.
One published account states:
My mother never got any attention. After her death all my mother's jewellery was missing.
A cook at an old people's home says:
I used to cry at the way the residents were treated.
A daughter writes:
My mother was paralysed on one side but the staff at the home would leave her lying in her urine for hours.


There have been reports of striking patients, the use of vile language, and residents being treated with contempt and scorn.
One startling, spine-chilling case describes a room next to a sick bay, a place to put someone who died in the night. Some bodies were taken there, the report says, before being certified dead. One very old man was left in this morgue for days, but he was breathing for hours afterwards. An auxiliary nurse, inexperienced in these matters, had the man taken there because his face was cold. That is a perfect example of having unqualified people dealing with these serious problems of the aged in private homes. Another case has been brought to my attention in which a deceased person was put on the steps of a home wrapped in towels ready to be taken away.
Before I proceed any further with this case work, let me make it clear that the reason why I have not mentioned the names of these homes is that I do not want to be accused of making accusations without examining the totality of the evidence. That is my exercise with the Minister. But the case work is in this file for him to see. This justifies my saying that he must look at these matters with exceptional care, and consider the broad problem of privately-owned old people's homes so that this kind of thing can be eliminated with whatever action he thinks best. The Registered Nursing Homes Association has given a great deal of information. I cannot do justice to it in the time available, but I invite the Minister to study these observations in the file.
One thing is clear: nursing, and especially acute nursing, care should be taken out of these private homes altogether. Upon this subject in particular I should like some discussion with the Minister. Where this care is allowed in these private homes, I assert that it is a breach of the law. It is only lawful if the private establishment is registered under the Nursing Homes Act, 1936.
The time has now come to give the protection and care for old people in a manner that the country expects. Let us not pretend that we are not aware of the nature of the problem. It will not be sufficient to say that the responsibility lies with the local authorities, or that if

they close a place they have nowhere else to put the residents. It is sufficient to say that where this rot exists it must be surgically cut out.
Our task now is to draw up a charter for the treatment of old people, to establish an association with its own council and agreed standards, and to give the supreme authority to the State, through the regional hospital boards, to ascertain that the needs of the old are satisfactorily met. We need better trained people and more of them, an inspectorate providing the right standards of inspection, at regular intervals, by qualified inspectors. Every old person should be registered, either in the courts or with some established authority, so that their persons and their property shall be protected from violation from whatever quarter.
I think that the Minister will agree that I have used this Adjournment debate as I have done before on a hospital matter involving public concern. I have no intention of addressing myself to him critically or of criticising the Government. My intention is to crystallise public concern about the growing evidence, particularly from the communications media and from people with experience of either working or living in these homes. Therefore, through natural democratic processes, the House has become aware of this matter. As it has been described to the Under-Secretary in that spirit, I hope he will look upon it as evidence certainly not of a fresh subject but of the kind of thing that can happen in a society such as ours, where our machinery is often bypassed by those who are unscrupulous and unworthy of taking part in any aspect of our social services.
I repeat that in the vast majority of cases there are high standards. But the growing number of unworthy cases is such that I call upon the Under-Secretary to respond to it.

11.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): The House rarely has an opportunity to consider this particular part of the services available for elderly people, and it will be glad that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has found the timely chance to raise this subject tonight.
In their later years some elderly people, fortunately a relatively small proportion, find it necessary to give up their ordinary independent domestic life and seek help and security in other ways of living. Some are so infirm or ill that they need continuous nursing care and look for it in hospitals or in voluntary or private nursing homes. Others needing less help turn to the local authority residential homes, to the voluntary homes, their equivalent, and to private homes. Others, those who do not go to live with relatives, find accommodation in hotels or boarding houses on ordinary commercial terms. To some extent the decision to act in this way is forced: there is no other way open to the elderly person concerned. But for many the choice will have been made freely. The new way of living is seen as better because it is safer, it removes the burdens, cares and worries of daily living and it offers the society of contemporaries. Most of those who resort to hotels and many who enter voluntary and private homes go there because they have chosen to do so. But the ability to choose inevitably declines with the years and elderly people can become very vulnerable. I am sure we all agree that there is a public responsibility to secure so far as is practicable that this vulnerability is not taken advantage of and exploited. That, I take it, is the nub of the hon. Member's arguments tonight.
The title of the debate refers to private homes, by which I take it is meant the home provided not by a voluntary body but by an owner who makes his living in this way. In fact, at least one of the homes mentioned in the News of the World articles was a voluntary home, and, as I hope to show, the same law applies to both and they need to be considered together. Both face the same difficulties in ensuring adequate management, supervision, and staffing. While all charge fees for their services, the wealthier charities, in the voluntary homes, are able to put in money to keep charges down.
I should like to consider first the purely residential type of provision to which most reference has been made, both by the hon. Gentleman and by the newspaper articles, and to look at nursing homes separately, for while there are

points in common there are also considerable differences.
Before doing so, I should like to stress one point on which I feel sure the hon. Member will agree; he has said so in terms. The News of the World itself says—I think the hon. Gentleman agreed it—that a few bad cases do not make a public scandal. There is really no evidence at all to make people generally uneasy about their elderly relatives in homes or to make elderly people themselves feel that the system exists simply to exploit them. There is, on the other hand, overall, I feel sure, an honest desire to serve which needs to be supported if there is to be the proper range of choice open to the public. It is important that this debate should not deliver the wrong message, an unnecessarily gloomy and worrying message, to the public.
First of all, what is known about the non-public sector and what is being done to find out more? I have already given the hon. Member, in a Parliamentary Answer, some figures about private homes. It may help the House to have just a few more to set the scene and to correct perhaps some impressions.
English local authorities—I included Wales in the answer—had about 87,000 elderly residents in their own homes at the end of 1970. There were about 23,000 in voluntary homes of whom a half were supported by the local authorities, which are responsible for about 100,000 elderly people. In registered private homes there are about 18,000. Authorities can take powers to use private homes too, but have not yet done so to any significant extent. Thus the non-public sector accounts for about one-third of the whole and private homes for a little less than half of this. But, whereas the public sector homes are reasonably well-distributed about the country, the non-public sector is heavily concentrated in the south and west. Of the total of about 2,800 voluntary and private homes no fewer than 1,150 are in the areas of only 14 local authorities. This is important when considering what can be done, because the burden on some is particularly heavy.
There is little organised knowledge about the characteristics of homes. The annual statistics of my Department show


that the net number is growing, particularly private homes, but there is a disturbing fall-out, approaching 10 per cent, each year, the reasons for which are not known. Financial stability may be one factor. Private homes typically are small—much smaller than either public or voluntary homes. The average number of residents is only 10 or 11 and substantial numbers must have only five or six. While a good number of homes cater for the wealthy and are really to be seen as expensive specialised hotels, the general picture is clearly pretty different. Many must be not much more than extended family groups. Little is known about fees, but a small study by the National Corporation for the Care of Old People a few years ago suggested that they were not exorbitant. The worry may be not that they are too high but that they are too low for decent standards to be afforded.
It is to the credit of the last Administration that they took the first steps to fill the gap in knowledge with a census of local authority and voluntary homes, covering the characteristics of residents, staff and buildings. This is now being written up. They were unable to complete a proposed sample survey of private homes, and we undertook this last year. We have the figures, and we intend to have an up-dating sample survey covering the whole field in 1973. This is the first time work of this kind has been attempted and the results may leave something to be desired, but we hope we have established the precedent of a series of surveys which will successively improve on the first. This should provide the essential basis of knowledge on which any general action should be based, including, if it seems necessary, the amendment of legislation and regulations.
What can be done meantime depends in part on that legislation which has remained unaltered since 1948 and in part on the practicalities. The legislation it self makes a clear division of central and local functions with one small bridge between the two. On the one hand, the Secretary of State is given no executive powers but only powers to make regulations for enforcement by the local authorities.
Regulations were, in fact, made by the last Conservative Administration in 1962,

and I have sent the hon. Member a copy. These deal with the conduct of homes and refer comprehensively to accommodation, furniture and equipment, staffing and catering. They cannot in the nature of things go into great detail of standards, because of the wide range of circumstances to which they apply, and this is unavoidably left to the good sense of the authorities administering the regulations. They do not deal directly with questions of staff pay and conditions, or of fees—and these are obviously related.
On the other hand, the powers of the local authorities relate to registration and the administration of the regulatory powers. The owner of any home holding itself out—an important phrase—to provide accommodation solely or mainly for elderly people is required to be registered with the local authority, and generally the social services department will be concerned about this. The authority may refuse to register and it may later cancel the registration if it is not satisfied as to the bona fides of the owner or the fitness of the home or its staff or the conduct of the home, and it may prosecute if there is an offence against the regulations.

Mr. Leadbitter: I accept that, but while registration is done inspection is not, and enforcement is not.

Mr. Alison: I am coming to enforcement. The power of inspection exists, but refusal to register or cancellation are subject to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. The same would be true if an authority sought to require, say, a guest house with a number of elderly boarders to register. The important point is that the authority cannot imply step in and enforce its will. It must prove its case for enforcement in the courts. It needs always a standard of proof that will stand up in a court of law, and that is not always easy to get. These may be thought to be weaknesses, protecting the owners and managers more than the residents. Before any change is proposed, however, the facts are needed to justify it.
Authorities do, however, have the power of entry to premises that are used, or thought reasonably to be used, as homes. They can use these powers both


in the process of enforcement and constructively to give the help and professional advice that owners and managers very often badly need. Many do so, so far as they can, though I have no information about the frequency of visits. The bridging power that I referred to lies in the concurrent power of inspection by authorised officers of my Secretary of State. Since executive action is in practice limited to a report to the registering authority, the local authority, our powers are rarely used in cases of special difficulty, but they can be used to support the authorities when needed.
The problem of practicalities is both general and particular. In general, the social services departments set up under the last Administration's legislation are at a crucial phase. They inherited a wide range of services, and took on the task of setting up a new and complex organisation. They have since been asked to absorb new tasks of considerable magnitude—the development of community homes for children, services for the elderly and the physically and mentally handicapped, and so on. I should be loth—and I hope that hon. Members in their zeal of action on this front will also be loth—to press on the new Seebohm departments new wide-ranging enterprises that their own local priorities do not justify. We must leave it to the good sense of the local authorities in these matters, in which Parliament has given them considerable freedom.
The particular problem arises from the heavy concentration in the south and

west. I see no reason at all why authorities with small numbers of homes in their area cannot get down to regular visiting—rather than formal inspection—to help put right anything that is wrong and to give constructive advice. In those which are lucky or unlucky enough to be over-well-endowed it is a different matter. In these areas the right course for the time being is to try to secure that any difficulty is brought to the notice of the social services department so that it can judge where action is feasible. Here I readily undertake to scrutinise carefully the file the hon. Gentleman is giving me, and to pass to the responsible authorities details of the questions which apply to their own area. Indeed, the course I have described is the right course elsewhere, since only the authority can act. My Department's social work service will in all this help as constructively as it can, but the first point of contract is the authority itself.
I turn to the nursing home scene. At the end of 1970 there were 1,004 registered nursing homes with a total of 23,346 beds. I do not have figures showing which of these are run by voluntary bodies and which privately by companies or individuals.The basic legislation in this field has remained unaltered since 1936—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes to Twelve o'clock